LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

Class 


TALKS  ON  RELIGION 


TALKS  ON   RELIGION 


A   COLLECTIVE   INQUIRY 


RECORDED    BY 

HENRY  BEDINGER  MITCHELL 


LONGMANS,   GREEN,  AND    CO. 

91  AND  93  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YORK 

LONDON,   BOMBAY,   AND    CALCUTTA 

1908 


3R 


COPYRIGHT,  1908 
BY  LONGMANS,  GREEN,  AND  Co. 


THE  UNIVERSITY   PRESS,   CAMBRIDGE,   U.  S.  A. 


Uetucateli 

TO    THE    ONE 

WHOSE   CONSECRATED   LIFB   FIRST   MADE   ME   SEEK 
THE   SECRET   OF   RELIGION 


176306 


PREFACE 

LAST  winter  it  was  my  good  fortune  to  take  part 
in  a  series  of  meetings  whose  personnel  and 
aims  were  alike  noteworthy.  The  company,  drawn 
partly  from  among  the  professors  of  a  great  univer- 
sity, partly  from  the  business,  literary,  and  ecclesiastic 
life  of  the  city  at  large,  represented  many  widely 
varying  types  of  character  and  mental  outlook.  Not 
a  few  bore  international  reputations  and  nearly  all 
had  attained  distinction  in  their  own  fields;  all  had 
known  the  discipline  of  exact  thinking.  It  is  there- 
fore the  more  significant  that  the  purpose  of  these 
meetings  was  the  re-examination  of  the  fundamentals 
of  religion.  The  following  pages  are  a  record  of  this 
collective  inquiry. 

This  book  thus  differs  from  many  others  cast  in  the 
same  literary  form.  It  is  not  the  work  or  thought 
of  one  man.  It  is  a  faithful  transcript  of  actual 
conversations  between  men  whose  names  are  withheld 
but  whose  occupations  are  given.  No  argument  has 
been  advanced  for  the  purpose  of  refutation.  Every 


viii  PREFACE 

opinion  put  forward  was  honestly  advocated.  It  is 
true  that  I  have  had  to  rely  upon  my  own  memory, 
and  have  been  often  keenly  conscious  of  my  failure 
to  reproduce  adequately  the  style  and  manner  of  the 
participants.  But  it  is  believed  that  no  substantial 
injustice  has  been  done  the  views  themselves. 

HENRY  BEDINGER  MITCHELL. 

NEW  YORK,  February  17,  1908. 


PARTICIPANTS    IN    THE 
DIALOGUE 

A  —  "  THE  MATHEMATICIAN  " 

A  Professor  of  Mathematics  and  Student  of  Religion 

B  — "THE  HISTORIAN" 

A  Professor  of  History,  well  known  for  his  researches 
into  the  history  of  the  Middle  Ages  and  the  part 
played  therein  by  the  Church 

C  —  "THE  PHILOSOPHER" 

A  Professor  of  Philosophy 

D  —  "THE  ZOOLOGIST" 

A  Professor  of  Zoology 

E  — "THE  AUTHOR" 

A  Writer  and  Orientalist,  best  known  for  his  trans- 
lations from  the  Upanishads 

F  — "THE  CLERGYMAN" 

A  Clergyman  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 

G  — "THE  EDITOR" 

A  Member  of  the  Society  of  Friends  by  birth  and 
education ;  a  Man  of  Business  by  force  of  circum- 
stances ;  a  Student  and  Editor  of  a  religious  Journal 
by  avocation 

H— -"THE  BIOLOGIST" 

A  Professor  of  Biology 


x  PARTICIPANTS 

I  —  "  THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  " 

A  Professor  of  Philosophy,  much  interested  in  Social- 
ism 

J_«THE  BANKER" 

A  Banker  and  Man  of  Business,  formerly  an  officer 
in  the  United  States  Army 

K  — "THE  PRAGMATIST" 

A  Professor  of  Philosophy  and  one  of  the  foremost 
exponents  of  Individualism  and  Pragmatism 

L  —  "  THE  ANTHROPOLOGIST  " 

A  Professor  of  Anthropology 

M  — "THE  OXONIAN" 

A  Professor  of  Philosophy,  much  interested  in  Psy- 
chology, and  an  earnest  Churchman 

N  — "THE  LOGICIAN" 

An  Instructor  of  Logic 

0  —  "THE  YOUTH" 

An  Assistant  in  Philosophy 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 
I.   THE  NATURE  OF  THE  INQUIRY — ASPECTS  OP 

RELIGION 1 

II.    CHRISTIANITY  AND  NATURE 32 

III.  EVOLUTION  AND  ETHICS  —  COLLECTIVE  LIFE 

AND  CONSCIOUSNESS 62 

IV.  POWER,  WORTH,  AND  REALITY 85 

V.   MYSTICISM  AND  FAITH 118 

VI.   THE  HISTORIAN'S  VIEW 146 

VII.    ORGANISATION  AND  RELIGION 218 

VIII.    SIGNS  OF  THE  TIMES  —  THE  RENAISSANCE  OF 

RELIGION 262 

IX.    HAS   THE   CHURCH   FAILED  ?  —  THE   OUTER 

AND  THE  INNER  LIFE  312 


If  you  would  malign  another's  faith,  remember  your  own. 
If  you  cannot  understand  his  belief,  stop  and  consider.  Can 
you  understand  your  own  ?  Do  you  know  whence  came  these 
emotions  that  have  risen  and  made  your  faith  ? 

The  faiths  are  all  brothers,  all  born  of  the  same  mystery. 
There  are  older  and  younger,  stronger  and  weaker,  some  babble 
in  strange  tongues  maybe,  different  from  your  finer  speech. 
But  what  of  that?  Are  they  the  less  children  of  the  Great 
Father  for  that  ?  Surely  if  there  be  the  unforgivable  offence, 
the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  is  this,  to  deny  the  truth  that 
lies  in  all  the  faiths. 

Religion  is  the  music  of  the  infinite  echoed  from  the  hearts 
of  men. 

H.  FIELDING  HALL. 


y^fS-SiSjS'S^ 

[  OF  THE 

(   UNIVERSITY   I 

or 


TALKS  ON   RELIGION 

A   COLLECTIVE   INQUIRY 
I 

THE  NATURE  OF  THE  INQUIRY— ASPECTS  OF 
RELIGION 

THE  twelve  men  assembled  in  the  Mathema- 
tician's rooms  presented  unusual  contrasts. 
They  included  professors  of  several  opposing 
schools  of  philosophy,  the  rector  of  an  influential  city 
parish,  an  Orientalist  and  writer  on  Eastern  religions, 
an  historian  who  had  done  much  to  clarify  our 
knowledge  of  the  Middle  Ages,  an  editor  of  a  reli- 
gious journal,  a  banker,  and  men  who  had  helped 
to  make  more  than  one  branch  of  modern  science. 
Diverse  as  had  been  their  achievements,  they  were 
drawn  together  by  an  interest  rarely  expressed,  but 
common  to  them  all,  and  had  accepted  the  Mathe- 
matician's invitation  to  re-examine  together  the  fun- 
damentals of  religion.  It  was  the  latter7  s  task  to 
outline  the  scope  and  character  of  this  collective 
inquiry  and  to  open  the  discussion.  That  he  was 
Conscious  of  its  difficulty  was  evident  in  the  some- 

1 


£  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

what  constrained  and  formal  manner  in  which  he 
hegan. 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  As  I  think  you  all  know, 
the  inquiry  which  we  are  about  to  inaugurate  has 
its  immediate  origin  in  some  conversations  I  had 
with  our  friend  B — ,  the  Historian.  Each  of  us 
had  been  interested  during  the  summer  in  studying 
the  problems  of  the  relation  of  Church  and  State, 
now  such  a  vital  question  in  Protestant  England  no 
less  than  in  Catholic  France,  and  from  comparing 
views  on  these  matters,  we  were  led  to  a  discussion 
of  religion  itself  and  the  present  conditions  sur- 
rounding religious  thought.  It  seemed  to  us  that 
these  contrasted  very  favourably  with  those  of  former 
years;  that  the  dogmatism  of  theology  and  the  re- 
action from  it  in  the  materialism  of  science  were 
alike  breaking  down;  and  that  with  the  emancipa- 
tion of  the  intellect  from  these  two  opposing  limita- 
tions had  come  both  the  recognition  of  religion  as  a 
fact  worthy  of  most  earnest  study,  and  also  the  pos- 
sibility of  a  new  view  of  religion  itself.  The  new 
view  thus  made  possible  seemed  to  us  characterised 
by  directness,  simplicity,  and  the  scientific  spirit - 
the  single  search  for  truth  and  its  frank  expression 
as  each  sees  it. 

"  Yet  the  complexity  of  the  emotions  which  fringe 
religious  phenomena,  the  infinite  variety  of  colouring 
given  to  religious  perception  by  the  mind  and  char- 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  INQUIRY  3 

acter  of  those  who  experience  it,  make  it  by  no 
means  easy  to  arrive  at  a  clear  intellectual  concept 
of  the  religious  principle,  or  of  religion  itself  as  a 
universal  rather  than  a  personal  fact.  There  is  too 
much  that  is  personal  which  must  be  eliminated,  too 
much  that  is  only  fragmentary  in  ourselves  which 
must  be  compared  with  the  fragments  in  others  and 
synthesised  into  a  whole,  to  make  such  an  inquiry 
promising  to  a  man  working  alone.  Therefore,  it 
seemed  to  Professor  B —  and  myself  that  it  would  be 
of  both  interest  and  value  to  get  together  a  number 
of  men  from  the  scientific,  philosophic,  and  ecclesi- 
astic worlds,  and  see  if  in  such  a  meeting  of  many 
opinions  truer  and  broader  concepts  might  not  be 
arrived  at  than  we  could  compass  alone.  Of  this 
attempt  I  am  the  more  hopeful  because  I  believe  that 
even  where  such  discussions  admit  of  no  single  syn- 
thetic statement,  co-ordinating  all  the  views  expressed, 
there  is  yet  always  a  certain  subconscious  synthesis, 
and  that  the  truth  is  pointed  by  these  varying  ex- 
pressions as  the  spokes  of  a  wheel  point  to  the  nave. 

"  The  object  of  discussion  is  thus  Religion  not 
religions.  This  distinction  is  important,  for  though 
a  knowledge  of  Religion  may  be  sought  through  a 
study  of  religions,  the  former  is  a  fundamental  tend- 
ency or  principle,  while  the  latter  are  for  the  most 
part  formal  systems  of  thought  and  life.  The  con- 
sideration of  a  definite  religious  system  leads  to  the 


4  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

analysis  of  its  particular  claims,  the  personality  of 
its  founder,  the  local  conditions  of  its  origin;  the 
mistakes  of  its  promulgators,  its  priests,  and  external 
policy  as  an  institution,  its  effect  upon  history  and 
civilisation.  These  concern  our  problem  and  may 
well  receive  attention,  but  they  are  not  the  problem 
itself.  And  indeed  they  seem  to  me  to  tend  more  to 
the  older  view  of  religion  from  which  I  desire  to 
escape  than  to  the  new  which  I  believe  men  gener- 
ally are  now  beginning  to  take.  For  from  such  study 
we  are  led  to  look  upon  a  religion  as  something  im- 
posed upon  us  from  without  and  exterior  to  our  own 
hearts  and  natures. 

"  Religion  itself,  however,  the  religious  spirit  or 
religious  aspiration,  is  the  most  intimately  inherent 
emotion  and  fact  of  human  life.  It  appears  in  many 
forms  and  in  varying  degree  of  development,  but 
there  is  no  people  of  whom  we  have  any  record  —  no 
race  or  tribe,  however  primitive  —  wholly  without  it. 
It  is  not  only  the  most  inherent  but  the  most  universal 
of  human  characteristics.  Therefore  it  is  primarily 
as  a  psychological  or  anthropological  phenomenon,  as 
an  ever  present  and  fundamental  fact  and  factor  in 
human  life,  that  we  seek  to  consider  the  subject  of 
religion. 

"  Man  is  not  set  over  against  the  universe  but  is 
included  in  it.  Thus  religion  as  a  fundamental  fact 
of  human  life  is  of  necessity  a  cosmic  fact  and 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  INQUIRY  5 

factor,  of  moment  whether  great  or  less.  As  religion 
is  intimately  personal  on  the  one  hand  it  is  cosmic 
on  the  other,  and  religious  feeling  or  perception 
seems  invariably  accompanied  by  the  sense  that  these 
facts  are  cosmic  and  universal,  and  that  in  touching 
them  our  own  limitations  are  transcended  into  unison 
with  their  infinitude.  Has  this  feeling  justification, 
and  if  so,  can  its  justification  be  revealed  ?  To  these 
questions  science  has  as  yet  given  but  little  atten- 
tion, and  now  offers  no  reply;  the  answer  of  the 
religious  teacher  has  always  been,  '  Yes,  but  by  ex- 
perience not  argument.' 

"  In  a  former  conversation  with  the  Historian  he 
accused  me  of  over  intellectualising  religious  emo- 
tion and  aspiration.  Such  is  by  no  means  my  desire, 
and  in  proposing  an  intellectual  discussion  of  the 
fundamentals  of  religion  I  am  keenly  aware  of  the 
difficulties  that  confront  us.  Indeed  it  is  probable 
that  I  view  the  functions  and  power  of  the  intellect 
in  such  matters  as  more  strictly  limited  than  would 
meet  with  your  general  assent.  For  it  seems  to  me 
that  the  philosophic  attempt  to  reconcile  all  differ- 
ences and  seek  a  fundamental  intellectual  unity,  pre- 
supposes a  highly  doubtful  scheme  of  the  universe 
and  of  man's  constitution,  —  namely,  that  the  intel- 
lect is  the  all  inclusive  perceptive  faculty.  An  all 
inclusive  perception  must  reconcile  all  differences, 
but  it  may  be  that  religious  perception  transcends 


6  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

the  plane  of  the  intellect  and  that  the  contradictions 
we  discover  in  our  mental  views  are  unified  not  in 
intellectual  but  in  religious  perception  and  experi- 
ence. This  seems  the  more  likely  in  that  religious 
teaching  is  full  of  paradox,  full  of  those  Janus  faced 
words  which  mean  one  thing  to  those  whom  James 
has  called  the  '  twice  born/  another  to  the  man  in 
the  street.  And,  moreover,  these  Janus  faced  words 
are  given  to  us  as  typical  of  life  itself,  and  of  the 
transformation  religion  makes  therein. 

"  But  whether  I  tend  to  over  emphasise  or  belittle 
the  intellectual  element  in  religion,  I  certainly  hold 
that  religious  phenomena  present  a  wide  field  for 
intellectual  inquiry,  and  that  such  discussions  as  I 
trust  these  will  be  can  greatly  clarify  our  ideas  on 
many  points.  Among  others  I  would  suggest  the 
following  as  part  of  the  ground  I  would  like  to  see 
covered. 

"  1.  The  analysis  and  separation  of  the  many 
complex  elements  which  are  indiscriminately  called 
religious  and  which  are  presented  by  and  enter  into 
religious  phenomena.  As  an  illustration  of  what  I 
mean  I  may  cite  the  matter  in  James's  '  Varieties  of 
Religious  Experience '  and  in  particular  the  descrip- 
tions of  conversions.  The  excess  of  emotion  there 
so  frequently  in  evidence  certainly  fringes  the  reli- 
gious experience,  but  is  it  an  inherent  element  of  that 
experience?  Is  it  more  than  the  reaction  upon  the 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  INQUIRY  7 

personality  of  a  new  and  profoundly  impressive  in- 
sight? And  does  not  religious  feeling  more  often 
still  than  excite  the  emotional  nature  ?  In  brief, 
what  is  the  relation  of  emotion  to  religion?  And 
what  the  relation  of  those  other  human  elements 
through  which  religious  feeling  seeks  expression? 

"  2.  Through  the  study  and  comparison  of  reli- 
gions and  religious  teachings  a  common  part  or  basis 
may  be  revealed  —  the  highest  common  factor  of 
them  all  —  and  this  may  perhaps  justly  be  taken 
as  the  basis  of  the  religious  life.  The  sifting  of 
this  from  extraneous  elements  of  custom  and  dogma 
should  be  of  the  utmost  value. 

"  3.  By  an  examination  of  primitive  myths  and 
superstitions  an  insight  may  be  sought  into  the  way 
in  which  the  religious  sentiment,  or  in  lower  orders 
perhaps  more  commonly  the  emotions  of  fear  and 
wonder,  are  given  mental  form  and  imagery,  and 
thus,  in  their  simplest  aspect,  we  may  inquire  into 
those  tendencies  in  the  mind  which  lead  to  all  reli- 
gious formalisation  and  dogma. 

"  4.  The  tracing  of  the  action  of  these  formalis- 
ing tendencies  through  the  evolution  and  growth  of 
different  religious  systems,  —  most  easily  studied  per- 
haps in  the  development  of  the  Christian  Church, 
and  the  effect  it  has  had  upon  our  civilisation. 

"  From  my  own  consideration  of  these  questions 
I  am  led  to  the  opinion  that  the  answers  to  the  first 


8  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

two  will  show  the  tendency  of  religious  perception 
to  cause  us  to  look  for  joy  and  rest  as  well  as  for 
support  and  strength  to  an  inner  world,  describable 
variously  as  of  ideals  and  principles  or  of  cosmic 
law;  felt,  though  intangible,  to  be  more  real  and 
permanent  than  the  outer  world  around  us.  And 
on  the  other  hand  that  the  second  two  reveal  with 
equal  clearness  the  tendency  of  the  personality  and 
the  effect  of  fear  to  cause  us  to  desire  a  more  visible 
support  (the  feeling  of  security  given  by  the  dollar 
in  your  pocket),  and  that  this  tendency  is  largely  in- 
strumental in  building  up  the  institutional  church. 
Between  these  two  opposing  tendencies  it  seems  to 
me  the  drama  of  religion  finds  its  setting. 

"  There  are  those  here  to-night  who  are  eminently 
qualified  to  deal  each  with  some  one  or  other  of  these 
various  aspects.  We  might  go  around  the  circle  of 
those  present,  and  find  in  the  life-work  of  each 
some  special  point  of  view  we  can  in  turn  adopt 
and  try  to  co-ordinate  and  synthesise  with  all  the 
others. 

"  But  above  all  I  am  desirous  that  the  results  of 
our  inquiry  should  not  be  prejudiced  in  advance. 
As  representatives  of  our  professions  we  perhaps 
would  speak  in  one  way  —  as  individuals,  though 
having  this  professional  knowledge,  we  may  well 
speak  in  another.  It  is  this  last  that  is  alone  of 
value.  For  we  are  seeking  to  get  behind  the  conven- 


THE  NATURE  OF  THE  INQUIRY  9 

tional  forms  and  mental  imagery  of  religious  views 
to  religion  itself.  And  part  of  the  value  of  such  a 
meeting  of  many  different  lines  of  thought  is  that  it 
will  help  us  to  eliminate  from  the  result  the  special 
colouring  of  any  one.  Therefore  I  trust  we  may 
speak  personally  as  well  as  impersonally;  remem- 
bering that  new  light  may  lie  not  only  in  an  analysis 
of  the  psychology  of  religious  expression,  but  also  in 
a  synthesis  of  religious  feeling. 

"  I  think  this  should  make  clear  what  I  hope  these 
meetings  will  accomplish,  and  that  I  have  now  done 
my  part.  Certainly  I  have  talked  enough.  Perhaps 
the  Historian  will  tell  us  if  I  misrepresented  him 
in  what  I  said  at  first,  and  further  suggest  some  line 
of  discussion  with  which  to  begin." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  I  think  the  Mathematician  has 
given  about  the  gist  of  our  original  conversation. 
There  is  so  much  indefiniteness  in  talk  on  religious 
subjects  that  it  is  pretty  hard  to  know  what  any- 
body else  means  by  what  they  say,  even  if  you  do 
occasionally  know  what  you  mean  yourself.  It  is 
this  indefiniteness  which  I  would  like  to  see  attacked. 
Nearly  anything  would  do  to  start  with,  —  you  could 
hardly  miss  it  from  any  point,  —  but  perhaps  we 
could  begin  by  seeing  how  far  apart  we  are  on  the 
main  subject  of  the  nature  of  religion  by  each  trying 
to  define  it.  That  ought  to  be  interesting  —  and 
varied." 


10  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

This  meeting  with  general  approval  it  was  sug- 
gested that  the  Historian  begin. 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  As  author  of  the  suggestion  I 
suppose  I  can  hardly  refuse,  yet  it  is  just  because 
I  have  not  myself  any  satisfactory  definition  that  I 
proposed  we  all  consider  it. 

"  Religion  seems  to  be  a  sort  of  feeling  or  emo- 
tion which  some  men  possess  and  which  others  do 
not.  It  appears  very  unequally  distributed  among 
us,  and  I  imagine  myself  to  be  about  as  barren  of  it 
as  most  people." 

Here  a  late  comer  entered,  and  with  a  silent  nod 
to  the  party  took  a  vacant  seat.  The  Historian  broke 
off  and  greeted  him: 

"  I  wish,  K — ,  you  had  come  earlier  or  later. 
Five  minutes  later  would  have  done.  But  now  you 
find  me  in  the  happy  position  of  giving  an  explana- 
tion of  what  I  have  just  said  I  have  neither  experi- 
ence nor  knowledge.  If  you  ask  why  I  was  selected 
to  begin  I  must  refer  you  to  these  other  gentlemen." 

The  Historian  was  here  encouraged  to  continue  by 
being  reminded  of  the  silence  that  would  fall  upon 
history  were  it  only  to  explain  what  it  knew,  and 
after  a  little  further  chaff  he  picked  up  the  thread 
of  his  thought. 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  Religion  appears  to  me  an  un- 
rational  emotion,  more  akin  to  the  aesthetic  sense 
than  to  any  other.  It  is  a  going  out  of  the  emo- 


THE    NATURE    OF   THE    INQUIRY    11 

tional  nature  similar  to  that  which  is  produced  by 
the  appreciation  of  a  beautiful  vase.  Some  men  can 
appreciate  beauty  and  some  cannot.  It  is  largely  a 
matter  of  temperament.  And  it  is  as  irrational  or 
rather  as  unrational  as  falling  in  love.  ~No  one  can 
tell  you  why  he  fell  in  love.  He  may  think  he  can, 
but  you  know  perfectly  well  it  was  not  a  reasoned 
process  at  all.  The  emotional  side  of  his  nature 
dominated  his  reason,  and  the  origin  of  his  state  and 
actions  is  in  this  going  out  of  his  emotions  and  not 
in  the  least  in  his  intellect.  An  intellectual  religion 
is  a  phrase  one  occasionally  hears,  and  it  seems  to 
me  to  be  just  as  sensible  as  an  intellectual  falling 
in  love. 

"  Those  whose  temperaments  cause  such  a  going 
out  of  the  emotional  nature  in  religious  matters  find 
a  satisfaction  and  a  value  in  it  which  is  to  them  its 
justification.  It  also  is  unrational.  In  fact,  most  of 
life  is  unrational.  We  like  to  call  ourselves  rational 
beings,  and  I  suppose  once  in  a  while  we  are.  But 
really  it  is  very  infrequent.  Most  of  the  time  we 
are  acting  from  some  motive  which  is  quite  unrea- 
soned, if  not  entirely  illogical,  and,  taking  men  gen- 
erally, not  one  per  cent  of  their  pleasures  and  satis- 
factions are  intellectual.  As  I  said,  I  do  not  know 
what  the  satisfaction  of  religious  feeling  is,  but  those 
who  i  have  religion  ?  seem  to  find  it  real  enough,  and 
that  it  gives  values  which  justify  themselves. 


12  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

"  I  think  that  is  about  my  view  of  religious  feeling. 
James's  book,  to  which  the  Mathematician  alluded, 
interested  me  greatly,  for  it  seemed  to  me  to  present 
the  facts  more  clearly  than  anything  I  have  seen, 
and  to  put  them  on  the  psychological  basis  where  I 
think  they  belong.  The  records  there  given  are  full 
of  this  unrational  emotional  element,  this  unreasoned 
satisfaction  and  sense  of  value.  How  close  these 
religious  emotions  are  to  the  aesthetic  appreciation  of 
beauty,  to  love  and  to  charity,  on  the  one  side,  or  to 
sensuality,  cruelty,  and  hatred  on  the  other,  is  a 
further  question  upon  which  the  history  of  Chris- 
tianity and  of  Europe  might  profitably  be  consulted." 

Some  little  discussion  followed  the  Historian's 
talk,  and  then  the  Philosopher,  being  next  in  order, 
was  asked  to  give  his  views.  He  began  by  referring 
to  the  many  definitions  of  religion  which  had  been 
attempted  in  the  past  and  which  had  been  made  the 
subject  of  much  philosophic  argument  and  debate. 
He  himself  had  once  tried  to  defend  the  definition 
of  religion  as  the  giving  of  cosmic  significance  to 
human  emotions.  He  thought,  however,  that  the  mere 
repetition  of  such  definitions  as  these  and  their  dis- 
cussion from  a  purely  logical  point  of  view  would 
contribute  little  towards  the  purposes  of  the  present 
meeting,  and  that  some  more  personal  expression 
was  desirable,  even  if  difficult.  He  then  continued 
somewhat  as  follows: 


THE    NATURE    OF   THE    INQUIRY    13 

THE  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  When  one  begins  to  look 
about  him  and  reflect  upon  the  life  in  which  he  finds 
himself,  he  sees  first  a  world  of  mechanism,  a  world 
of  physical  forces  and  phenomena,  in  which  and 
upon  which  he  must  act  and  which  react  upon  him. 
His  education,  his  training,  his  whole  experience, 
have  made  him  familiar  with  this  world;  indeed, 
his  existence  itself  depends  upon  his  at  least  partial 
mastery  of  and  obedience  to  the  laws  of  the  mechan- 
ism of  life.  He  sees  himself  in  a  great  net  of 
mechanism,  binding  him  not  only  to  physical  na- 
ture but  to  his  fellows;  a  mechanism  operative  in 
moral  and  social  life  as  in  purely  animal  or  phys- 
ical life.  So  his  first  view  of  the  world  is  that  of 
a  mechanical  world,  of  facts  and  forces,  all  bound 
together,  all  acting  and  reacting  one  upon  the  other, 
and  of  which  he  is  a  part. 

"  But  as  he  reflects  further,  particularly  as  he 
pays  heed  to  his  own  emotions  and  feelings,  the  facts 
of  his  own  consciousness,  he  realises  that  this  is  not 
only  a  world  of  mechanism  but  also  a  world  of  values. 
He  finds  some  things  valuable  to  him  and  others 
not,  and  this  seemingly  quite  apart  from  the  effect 
of  these  things  upon  the  external  mechanism  of  life, 
—  or  better,  perhaps,  valuable  to  him  without  con- 
scious reference  to  the  mechanism  of  life.  He  finds 
himself  not  only  in  a  factual  world,  but  in  a  sen- 
tient world  —  a  world  of  meanings,  of  purposes,  of 


14  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

ideals ;  of  feelings  and  emotions,  and  values.  These 
feelings  and  sense  of  values  may,  when  viewed  ex- 
ternally, appear  to  originate  in  and  be  purely  per- 
sonal to  the  man  himself.  But  when  and  as  experi- 
enced, intimately  personal  as  they  are,  they  are 
something  more  than  personal.  They  bring  with 
them  a  sense  of  universal,  of  cosmic,  significance  and 
import.  The  search  for  the  explanation  and  sup- 
port of  this  cosmic  significance  of  human  emotions 
and  values  seems  to  me  the  basis  of  religion. 

"  In  my  view,  therefore,  religion  is  concerned  with 
the  world  of  values  in  contradistinction  to  the  world 
of  mechanism.  It  co-ordinates  or  seeks  to  co-ordinate 
all  the  non-mechanical  sentient  side  of  man's  life, 
his  emotions  and  aspirations  and  ideals,  with  a  cos- 
mic life  or  world  of  the  same  elements  and  nature. 
In  this  co-ordination  the  man  seeks  both  support  and 
explanation  of  himself. 

"  There  is  one  other  thing  in  regard  to  the  relation 
of  this  religious  world  of  values  to  the  mechanical 
world  which  seems  to  me  significant  and  character- 
istic, —  and  that  is  the  sense  of  the  pre-eminence 
of  the  former  —  the  feeling  that  between  these  two 
worlds  there  is  a  causal  relation  and  that  mastery 
of  the  world  of  values  gives  mastery  of  the  world  of 
mechanism.  It  is  an  unreasoned  feeling,  but  it  seems 
both  genuine  and  widespread." 

When  the  Philosopher  had  finished,  the  Mathe- 


THE    NATURE    OF   THE    INQUIRY    15 

matician  pointed  out  that  while  the  Historian  had 
spoken  of  religion  as  an  opening  of  the  emotional 
nature  akin  to  the  appreciation  of  beauty  or  the 
passion  of  love,  the  last  speaker  had  added  the 
rational  or  intellectual  element  of  the  desire  to  co- 
ordinate these  feelings  with  cosmic  principles  and  to 
seek  their  explanation  in  a  world  of  ideals  and  values 
whose  laws  must  be  as  definite  as  those  of  the  me- 
chanical world,  and  in  which  man  lived  fully  as 
vitally  and  consciously  as  in  the  world  of  facts.  The 
two  views  were  thus  in  no  way  contradictory,  but 
one  enriched  and  supplemented  the  other,  as  he  be- 
lieved all  genuine  views  of  life  would  be  found  to 
do.  He  then  asked  D — ,  a  Professor  of  Zoology,  to 
take  up  the  subject. 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  It  may  seem  strange  for  a  sci- 
entist to  hold  the  views  I  do  —  or  indeed  to  state 
any  views  at  all  upon  such  a  question,  but  —  " 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  (interrupting  him)  :  "  But 
after  all,  D — ,  despite  your  being  a  scientist,  you  are 
a  man  like  the  rest  of  us,  and  religion  must  concern 
the  man  whether  it  touches  the  scientist  or  not." 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  Quite  so.  As  I  was  about  to 
say,  I  think  most  of  us  have  passed  through  very 
much  the  same  general  experience  regarding  religious 
matters.  As  boys  we  were  taught  the  elements  of 
Christianity;  were  brought  up  in  one  or  another  of 
the  Christian  sects ;  were  told  of  God  and  of  heaven 


16  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

and  of  hell,  and  generally  given  the  idea  that  this 
was  religion  and  the  basis  of  morality.  I  think 
most  of  us  accepted  this  as  we  accepted  other  things 
told  us,  or  that  we  learned  in  childhood  without 
reasoning  or  thinking  about  it  at  all,  and  that  though 
it  lay  there  in  our  minds  as  we  matured,  we  paid 
small  attention  to  it,  finding  it  really  touched  our 
lives  but  little.  We  took  our  place  in  the  world  of 
men  and  facts  around  us,  and  our  work  and  duties 
absorbed  us  more  and  more  till  this  early  religious 
training  was  quite  overlaid.  To  the  extent  that  we 
later  thought  of  it  we  found  it  primitive  and  un- 
satisfactory. It  was  neither  the  basis  of  our  own 
lives  nor  of  the  lives  of  those  we  met.  Our  code 
was  not  this  code,  our  ethics  not  founded  on  any  such 
system  of  future  rewards  and  punishments.  These 
things  might  be  —  but  we,  and  others,  acted  as  though 
they  were  not.  Our  lives  were  simpler,  more  direct 
and  material.  Certain  things  we  felt  right  and  did, 
certain  other  things  wrong  and  tried  to  avoid.  If 
we  questioned  the  origin  of  these  feelings  there 
seemed  to  be  a  more  immediate  rational  explanation 
of  them  than  that  they  were  taught  two  thousand 
years  ago,  or  that  the  one  way  led  to  hell  and 
the  other  to  heaven.  In  short,  we  had  outgrown  the 
forms  of  our  childhood,  and  religion  and  conduct 
were  for  us  divorced. 

"  But  while  we  were  outgrowing  certain  forms  we 


THE    NATURE    OF   THE    INQUIRY    17 

were  growing  into  certain  perceptions  and  feelings. 
We  were  studying  nature  or  life  itself,  and  the  im- 
mensity and  grandeur  of  what  is  were  laying  their 
hold  upon  us.  The  immeasurable  lapse  of  time,  the 
infinitude  of  space,  the  mighty  rush  and  swirl  of 
cosmic  energy,  the  infinite  richness  and  variety  of 
nature,  the  myriad  forms  of  organic  life,  and,  per- 
haps more  than  all  else,  the  slow,  sure  march  of  evo- 
lution and  the  immobility  of  law,  were  opening  our 
consciousness  to  new  perceptions  and  emotions.  It 
is  these  emotions  which  typify  for  me  to-day  religious 
feeling,  as  I  think  they  do  for  many  other  scientific 
men,  and  I  offer  as  my  definition  of  religion  what 
Haeckel  has  called  (  cosmic  emotion.' ' 

The  Zoologist  had  spoken  with  earnestness  and 
conviction,  and  when  he  had  finished  there  was  a 
moment's  pause.  The  Mathematician,  a  little  re- 
gretful of  his  somewhat  flippant  interruption  of  the 
Zoologist's  introduction,  thanked  him  for  his  con- 
tribution, and  his  neighbour  E— ,  the  Author,  took 
up  the  talk.  The  Author  was  a  graduate  of  the  In- 
dian Civil  Service  and  had  not  only  spent  much 
time  in  India  but  had  continued  a  profound  student 
of  Eastern  literatures  and  religions.  It  was  rather 
expected,  therefore,  that  what  he  would  say  would  re- 
flect the  mysticism  and  colouring  of  the  Upanishads, 
but  he  chose  at  first  to  draw  from  the  more  generally 
familiar  sources  of  Tolstoi  and  Plato  a  view  of  re- 

2 


18  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

ligion  which  should  include  action  and  the  will  as 
well  as  emotion. 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  The  Zoologist's  quotation  from 
Haeckel  recalls  a  definition  of  religion  which  Tol- 
stoi has  offered :  '  The  relation  which  a  man  believes 
himself  to  hold  to  the  universe,  and  to  its  source, 
is  his  religion/  and  he  adds  that  in  this  sense  every 
one  has  a  religion,  as  every  one  believes  himself  to 
hold  some  relation  to  the  universe. 

"  Tolstoi  recognises  three  such  attitudes  toward 
the  universe: 

"  1.  What  he  calls  the  (  savage '  attitude  (not 
necessarily  that  of  any  race  we  call  savage),  —  where 
a  man  is  fighting  against  the  universe,  for  his  own 
hand;  the  attitude  of  the  single  contestant; 

"2.  What  he  calls  the  '  pagan  '  attitude,  —  where 
a  man  lives  for  a  certain  group  or  tribe  or  society, 
or  even  for  the  whole  of  humanity,  and  is  willing 
to  subordinate  his  personal  weal,  his  personal  views, 
to  the  weal  of  such  a  society; 

"  3.  What  he  calls  the  '  Christian '  attitude  — 
taking  the  text  '  My  meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  Him 
that  sent  me  '  (John  iv,  34)  as  a  keynote,  he  enlarges 
on  the  attitude  of  one  who  believes  he  is  in  the  world 
1  to  do  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  him/  and  gives 
himself  up  to  obedience  to  this  will. 

"  This  comes  close  to  my  own  idea  of  religion. 
Just  as  our  muscular  forces  come  in  relation  with 


THE    NATURE    OF    THE    INQUIRY     19 

the  universal  force  of  gravitation,  and  all  our  phys- 
ical life  is  thereby  possible,  so  I  believe  our  spiritual 
forces  are  in  relation  with  a  universal  divine  will, 
which  we  touch  inwardly  and  directly  through  our 
own  wills;  and  in  obedience  to  this  will  lies  our 
possibility  of  spiritual  well-being  and  growth.  As 
Dante  says :  i  In  His  will  is  our  peace.' 

"  Therefore,  religion  seems  to  me  a  matter  of  the 
will;  a  putting  our  wills  into  relation  with  the 
divine  will,  and  an  obedience  thereto.  Compare 
Plato,  who  in  the  Apology  makes  Socrates  say  that 
he  had  always  been  conscious  of  a  godlike  voice 
within  him,  stopping  him  if  he  were  about  to  do 
anything  not  rightly;  or  compare  the  Katha  Upan- 
ishad :  '  The  dearer  is  one  thing,  the  better  is  an- 
other. These  two  draw  a  man  in  opposite  ways.  It 
is  well  for  him  who  follows  the  better.  He  fails  of 
his  goal  who  follows  the  dearer.' 

"  So  I  think  religion  is  the  will  in  action  —  the 
free  and  determinative  choice  between  the  better  and 
the  dearer,  between  what  is  felt  to  be  right  and  what 
is  felt  to  be  pleasant." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  take  it,  then,  that  you 
are  adding,  to  the  definitions  previously  given,  the 
ethical  element." 

Upon  this  it  was  as  though  a  stone  had  been 
thrown  into  a  hornet's  nest.  There  was  an  immedi- 
ate buzz  of  query  and  protestation.  Religion  was 


20  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

one  thing,  ethics  another.  Yet  was  it  after  all  so 
certain  that  they  were  separate  ?  True,  there  are 
many  possible  bases  for  ethics,  many  a  moral  man 
would  call  himself  without  religion,  yet  was  not 
perhaps  ethics  itself  that  man's  religion?  Again, 
was,  or  was  not,  religion  always  accompanied  by  a 
system  of  ethics?  The  Author  had  spoken  of  the 
action  of  the  will,  the  choice  between  good  and  bad 
as  constituting  the  greater  and  more  vital  part  of 
life.  Surely  this  was  not  actually  the  case.  Such 
deliberate  choice  was  rare.  Most  of  our  actions  were 
determined  by  habit.  But  this  habit  must  have  had 
its  origin  in  such  choice.  To  appeal  to  habit  was 
but  to  push  the  determinative  action  of  the  will  into 
the  past,  not  to  remove  either  it  or  its  paramount 
importance.  So  argument  pressed  on  argument  from 
around  the  circle.  It  was  evident  these  men  had 
won  their  intellectual  liberty  too  hardly  to  suffer 
even  the  suggestion  that  religion  and  morals  were 
bound  together.  The  word  "  religion  "  when  used  by 
another  still  carried  the  implication  of  religious 
forms  and  dogmas,  and  the  unprovable  but  oft  quoted 
theological  corollary  that  an  attack  upon  religious 
dogmas  was  an  attack  upon  morality  still  lingered 
in  their  minds. 

Finally  the  Author  succeeded  in  making  it  clear 
that  no  such  connotation  was  intended  and  no  such 
actual  meaning  existed  in  what  he  had  said,  but 


THE    NATURE    OF   THE    INQUIRY    21 

nevertheless  an  emotion  or  feeling  which  did  not 
touch  the  will,  could  not,  in  his  judgment,  properly 
be  given  as  a  definition  of  religion.  The  essence  of 
a  man's  religion  was  shown  through  his  will,  neither 
through  his  mind  nor  his  emotions. 

THE  CLERGYMAN :  "I  do  not  know  whether  it  is 
because  I  am  unaccustomed  to  just  this  sort  of  dis- 
cussion (having  been  for  so  long  outside  the  academic 
atmosphere)  that  it  seems  to  me  we  have  been  talk- 
ing more  of  the  philosophy  of  religion  than  of  reli- 
gion itself.  The  search  for  an  explanation  of  our 
sense  of  values,  the  emotions  we  experience  in  con- 
templating nature,  the  determinative  choice  and  ac- 
tion of  the  will,  all  appear  to  me  as  elements  in  the 
philosophy  of  religion. 

"  Religion  itself  I  view  as  a  relation,  —  a  relation 
between  man  and  God.  I  use  the  term  '  God  '  because 
it  is  the  most  familiar  to  me  and  the  best  I  know. 
Yet  it  may  have  different  connotations  in  the  minds 
of  others.  For  myself,  I  would  be  willing  to  accept 
the  views  of  Sir  Oliver  Lodge,  which  appeared  re- 
cently in  the  HMert  Journal.  I  think  with  him 
that  as  we  look  out  upon  life,  upon  its  richness  and 
variety,  and  its  wonderful  order  and  law,  that  it  is 
impossible  for  us  to  believe  that  our  own  conscious- 
ness and  intelligence  —  yours  and  mine,  just  as  they 
are  —  are  the  highest  type  which  exists.  I  know 
for  myself  I  cannot  believe  this,  nor  does  it  seem  to 


22  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

me  logical  or  to  be  believed.  I  am  willing  that  my 
use  of  the  term  '  God  7  should  be  taken  as  the  synthesis 
of  all  this  range  of  higher  intelligence  —  of  all  that 
is  beyond  and  above  us.  If  you  care  for  a  defini- 
tion, how  would  this  do  ?  —  Religion  is  the  instinc- 
tive alliance  between  God  and  man,  by  which  the 
highest  image  of  human  possibilities  is  revealed,  and 
help  to  perfection  is  received. 

"  Religion  from  this  point  of  view,  as  the  relation 
of  man  to  what  is  above  him,  is  also  expressive  of 
and  expresses  itself  through  '  the  climbing  instinct/ 
as  James  Russell  Lowell  called  it  —  the  instinct  or 
power  which  operates  to  raise  and  better  us,  to  lift 
us  into  the  likeness  of  something  higher.  And  this 
instinct  is  a  prime  deposit  in  our  nature. 

Nor  did'st  Thou  reck  what  image  man  might  make 
Of  his  own  shadow  on  the  flowing  world ; 
The  climbing  instinct  was  enough  for  Thee. 

"  I  find  certain  religious  practices  of  great  assist- 
ance in  producing  a  higher  spiritual  consciousness  — 
especially  prayer.  Prayer  is  the  greatest  assistance 
and  satisfaction  of  my  life,  the  deepest  happiness. 
It  not  only  strengthens  me  by  giving  me  the  feeling 
of  a  divine  companionship,  but  it  relates  me  to  all 
mankind  by  the  noblest  and  most  powerful  sense  of 
fraternity  and  serviceableness." 

THE  ANTHROPOLOGIST  :  "  I  would  like  to  ask  you, 
Mr.  IT — ,  whether  you  would  exclude  the  relation 


THE    NATURE    OF   THE    INQUIRY    23 

of  a  dog  to  his  master  from  your  definition  of  reli- 
gion as  a  relation.  I  have  been  very  much  interested 
in  what  you  have  said  and  in  particular  in  your  use 
of  the  word  '  relation.7  In  writing  of  the  earlier  ex- 
pressions of  the  religious  instinct  we  have  been  much 
puzzled  what  word  to  use.  I  have  been  inclined  to 
use  '  attitude  '  but  I  think  your  use  of  the  word  (  re- 
lation '  is  perhaps  the  better,  if  it  includes  such  a 
relationship  as  I  have  instanced." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  Yes,  I  think  it  might,  so  far 
as  that  is  a  relationship  of  an  inferior  to  a  superior 
intelligence.  But  it  is,  of  course,  difficult  to  say 
what  the  relation  of  a  dog  to  his  master  really  is." 

THE  ANTHROPOLOGIST  :  "  That  is  the  trouble  with 
pushing  such  an  analogy.  None  of  us  knows  what 
is  actually  going  on  in  the  dog's  mind  and  so  what 
his  attitude  really  is.  But  the  simile  is  suggestive 
in  some  ways." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Has  not  Manitouism  re- 
cently been  proposed  for  the  designation  of  the  belief 
in  a  higher  power  than  man  himself  —  or  for  the 
simplest  form  of  religious  belief  ? " 

THE  ANTHROPOLOGIST  :  "  Manitouism  has  been 
suggested,  but  it  is  in  fact  by  no  means  a  crude  or 
primitive  form  of  belief.  It  is  a  very  complete 
system.  '  Belief  in  spirits '  has  been  used  to  denote 
the  early  expression  of  religion,  but  very  likely  that 
also  is  not  the  beginning." 


24  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

THE  PEAGMATIST  :  "  The  Clergyman  defines  re- 
ligion as  a  relation,  but  to  me  that  seems  very 
indefinite.  There  are  so  many  types  of  relation  and 
surely  not  all  of  them  are  religions.  Again,  a  re- 
lation may  be  entirely  unconscious,  and  I  take  it 
that  a  man  unconscious  of  his  religion  would  not 
be  called  religious." 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  It  is  perhaps  more  the  sense 
of  this  relation  than  the  relation  itself  which  is  one's 
religion." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  imagine  the  Clergy- 
man included  the  sense  or  consciousness  of  the  re- 
lation in  his  use  of  that  term.  Surely  all  men  must 
be  in  some  relation  to  God,  and  it  would  seem  to 
be  the  extent  to  which  they  were  conscious  of  this 
and  made  it  a  personal  rather  than  impersonal  re- 
lation that  determined  the  nature  of  their  religion. 
Am  I  right  in  this,  Mr.  F—  ? " 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  Certainly,  I  intended  to  in- 
clude awareness  of  this  relationship.  And  its  ac- 
tive character,  from  one  side  at  least,  I  indicated 
by  what  I  said  of  the  climbing  instinct  and  of 
prayer." 

THE  PEAGMATIST  :  "  But  I  am  puzzled  also  by 
your  view  of  religion  as  a  climbing  instinct.  Does 
not  this  contradict  the  most  characteristic  feeling 
of  religious  emotion  and  experience?  I  mean  the 
sense  of  peace,  of  permanence,  indeed  of  absolute 


THE    NATURE    OF    THE    INQUIRY    25 

inertia,  neither  desiring  anything  else  nor,  indeed, 
with  any  thought  of  anything  else  ?  " 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  Is  not  this  the  temporary  result 
which  the  climbing  instinct  has  sought?  It  reaches 
its  momentary  satisfaction  in  this  peaceful  state  and 
sense  of  enlightenment  or  union  with  something 
higher.  Falling  from  this,  it  starts  to  climb  again  — 
or,  as  it  becomes  familiar  with  this  state,  new  heights 
open  before  it." 

THE  PRAGMATIST  :  "  But  even  so,  this  state  is, 
properly  speaking,  more  truly  a  religious  condition 
than  is  the  struggle  which  led  to  it.  And  in  many 
cases  there  was  no  such  struggle.  This  feeling  came 
as  an  unexpected  vision.  Then,  too,  in  my  own  case 
I  do  not  find  the  synthesis  of  feeling,  the  unification 
of  life  and  action  which  others  speak  of,  as  the  re- 
sult of  religion.  On  the  contrary,  action  becomes 
more  complicated,  more  perplexing.  With  increased 
religious  knowledge  it  seems  more  difficult  to  live, 
not  simpler." 

There  was  some  little  discussion  of  this  point 
and  then  G — ,  the  Editor,  was  asked  to  give  his 
views. 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  I  had  been  trying  earlier  in  the 
evening  to  formulate  my  own  definition  of  religion, 
and  I  found  in  listening  to  our  friend  the  Clergy- 
man that  I  not  only  agree  with  all  he  has  said  but 
had  actually  used  his  words  to  express  the  main 


26  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

idea,  namely,  '  Religion  is  the  relation  between  man 
and  God.' 

"  What  different  persons  mean  by  God  varies 
greatly.  Consequently  their  religions  differ.  I  hap- 
pen to  know,  for  example,  that  my  idea  of  God  is 
different  from  the  Clergyman's,  and  so  what  religion 
means  to  me  is  different  from  what  it  means  to 
him. 

"  To  go  back  a  moment  to  what  the  Historian  said, 
when  he  spoke  of  the  emotion  or  instinct  we  all  pos- 
sess but  in  varying  degree,  he  likened  it  to  the  aes- 
thetic instinct,  and  he  spoke  of  the  emotion  we  felt 
when  we  gazed  at  a  beautiful  vase.  He  also  likened 
it  to  love,  which  we  feel  for  a  person.  But  in  each 
of  these  illustrations  there  is  an  object  towards  which 
the  emotion  is  directed.  In  the  description  of  the 
religious  instinct,  however,  he  said  nothing  about  its 
object :  the  thing  or  being  toward  which  it  is  directed. 
I  think  this,  however,  is  the  essence  of  the  question. 
We  all  acknowledge  the  existence  of  the  religious 
instinct,  but  its  character,  the  character  of  the  reli- 
gion itself,  is  largely  determined  by  the  character 
of  its  object.  So  I  do  not  think  we  can  arrive  at 
a  very  clear  idea  of  religion  unless,  in  addition  to 
an  analysis  of  the  instinct  itself,  we  take  into  ac- 
count the  nature  of  the  objects  toward  which  it  turns. 
It  is  the  difference  in  these  latter  which  seems  to 
me  really  determinative." 


THE    NATURE    OF    THE    INQUIRY    27 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Do  you  think,  G — ,  that 
the  ultimate  objects  of  religious  feeling  are  them- 
selves and  in  essence  so  different  in  different  people  ? 
Or  do  you  think  that  these  differences  are  in  reality 
more  an  affair  of  words  than  of  fact,  —  simply  dif- 
ferent mental  expressions  for  the  same  thing?  As 
the  same  light  will  receive  different  colouring  com- 
ing through  different  glasses.  In  the  latter  case 
they  would  not  seem  as  important  as  in  the  former." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  They  seem  to  me  of  vital  impor- 
tance, indeed  determinative,  as  I  said,  of  the  whole 
character  of  a  man's  religion.  A  man  who  believes 
in  an  anthropomorphic  God,  as  did  many  of  the 
saints  of  the  Middle*  Ages  whose  lives  and  visions  are 
recorded  for  us,  has  a  very  different  religion  from 
one  whose  view  of  the  Deity  is  purely  pantheistic: 
the  religion  of  the  fetich  worshipper  is  not  that 
of  the  Hindoo  contemplating  Parabrahm.  The  dif- 
ferences, alike  in  men  and  in  their  religions,  con- 
sist in  the  different  nature  of  the  objects  to  which 
they  turn  their  desires  or  to  which  their  emotions 
respond." 

THE  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  I  think,  Mr.  G — ,  you  are 
in  a  philosophically  untenable  position.  On  the  one 
hand  you  define  religion  as  a  relation,  and  on  the 
other  you  say  its  character  is  determined  by  the 
object  to  which  we  are  related,  and  that  differences 
in  this  object  necessitate  differences  in  the  relation. 


28  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

I  think  that  is  a  non-sequitur.  We  are  often  in  the 
same  relation  to  different  objects.  I  am  the  brother 
of  two  different  people.  The  relation  of  love  exists 
between  a  man  and  many  different  types  of  character 
and  existence.  It  is  a  most  common  psychological  fact 
that  the  true  character  of  an  object  has  very  little 
to  do  with  the  emotions  we  may  entertain  toward 
it  In  other  words  —  though  of  course  not  all  ob- 
jects can  be  viewed  as  entering  into  all  relations  — 
the  character  of  the  object  and  the  character  of  the 
relation  are  philosophically  quite  distinct." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  I  suppose  that  is  so,  and  that  my 
view  would  require  restatement,  if  it  is  to  avoid  these 
pitfalls  of  philosophy  for  the  trapping  of  the  unwary. 
Nevertheless  I  stick  to  my  contention  —  that  the  re- 
lation which  a  man  feels  to  exist  between  him  and 
God  and  the  nature  or  character  which  he  ascribes 
to  God  are  the  two  fundamental  and  determining  ele- 
ments of  his  religion.  The  first  element  had  already 
been  brought  out  by  the  Clergyman.  I  wanted  to 
suggest  the  second  as  equally  important." 

THE  BIOLOGIST  :  "  The  Clergyman  spoke  of  reli- 
gion as  the  climbing  instinct  —  the  instinct  or  power 
by  which  we  seek  to  broaden  and  lift  the  individual 
life.  That  is  not  religion,  but  life  itself.  It  is  as 
manifest  in  the  amoeba  as  in  man.  It  is  an  under- 
lying principle  of  evolution,  a  fundamental  factor 
in  all  growth  and  life.  I  do  not  see  that  it  is  neces- 


THE   NATURE    OF   THE    INQUIRY     29 

sarily  at  all  a  conscious  process,  and  it  certainly  is 
not  confined  to  humanity." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  doubt  whether  it  is 
necessary  or  desirable  to  so  confine  our  view  of  reli- 
gion. Indeed,  if  religion  is  as  fundamental  as  some 
of  us  feel  it  to  be,  it  would  be  an  almost  inevitable 
consequence  that  in  one  way  or  another  it  ran  through 
all  life." 

THE  BIOLOGIST  :  "  That  is  what  I  think  we  should 
try  and  get  at.  Religion  is  not  love,  it  is  not  emo- 
tion, it  is  not  awe,  it  is  not  the  choice  and  action  of 
the  will,  but  something  which  causes  these,  itself 
beneath  them,  more  inherent  and  basic.  Ordinary 
love,  for  example,  is  not  sexual  union,  nor  the  desire 
for  such  union,  but  is  a  phenomenon  which  has  de- 
veloped from  these  through  long  periods  of  evolution. 
We  can  thus  trace  the  growth  and  evolution  of  sexual 
attraction  and  of  love  back  through  these  primary 
facts  of  animal  life  to  relations  between  reproductive 
cells,  and  back  of  these  again  to  chemical  and  phys- 
ical properties.  Can  we  do  the  same  with  religion? 
What  is  the  basis  of  religious  attraction?  What  is 
the  natural  fundamental  fact  or  law  or  force  under- 
lying these  religious  feelings  and  causing  them? 
Those  are  the  questions  which  I  think  are  the  vital 
ones.  What  is  back  of  man's  religious  feeling? 
What  its  origin,  its  cause,  its  significance  ?  " 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Can  we  not  find  such  a 


30  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

basis  for  religion  —  what  is  in  essence  a  physical 
basis  —  along  the  lines  suggested  by  the  Philosopher 
when  he  said  we  lived  in  a  world  of  values  as  well 
as  in  a  world  of  facts  ?  I  know  that  is  the  intel- 
lectual justification  I  give  my  own  religious  aspira- 
tion. There  is  no  need  to  assume  the  inner  world  of 
values,  of  aspirations,  ideals,  and  moral  law  to  be 
totally  immaterial  and  without  physical  basis.  On 
the  contrary,  I  think  common  sense  requires  us  to 
postulate  a  physical  basis  for  it,  and  that  much  is 
gained  by  doing  so.  It  may  simply  be  a  different 
kind  of  matter  subject  to  different  laws ;  as  the  ether 
which  is  the  physical  basis  of  light  and  electricity 
and  magnetism  is  a  different  kind  of  matter  from  this 
chair.  Man  to-day  is  living  in  both  worlds,  partly 
conscious  in  both  worlds,  though  his  consciousness  of 
the  inner  world  seems  very  dim  and  blind,  so  that 
perhaps  instinct  and  feeling  better  describe  it  than 
consciousness.  But  blind  as  it  is,  this  feeling  brings, 
as  the  Zoologist  said,  the  sense  of  the  greater  rich- 
ness and  value  and  vitality  of  the  inner  world,  the 
sense  that  in  some  way  it  is  higher  and  better  for 
us  if  we  could  only  come  to  full  consciousness  and 
mastery  of  it. 

"  More  than  this,  it  seems  to  me  as  though  there 
was  a  certain  compulsion  toward  this  inner  life,  not 
only  the  sense  that  we  '  ought '  to  value  such  in- 
sight as  we  have  gained  of  it  and  to  follow  our 


THE   NATURE    OF   THE    INQUIRY    31 

feeling  of  its  laws,  but  as  though,  willy  nilly,  the 
tide  of  life  was  pushing  us  in  that  direction.  I 
understand  that  you  biologists  hold  the  earliest  form 
of  animal  life  to  have  been  aquatic.  There  must 
have  been  a  time  when  it  became  amphibious  and 
passed  thence  to  living  in  the  air  —  matter  in  quite 
a  different  form.  So  it  seems  to  me  of  the  outer 
world  and  the  inner  world,  and  that  it  is  possible 
that  religion  can  find  a  physical  basis  in  the  evolu- 
tion of  man  from  one  to  the  other." 

When  the  Mathematician  stopped,  L —  rose  to  go, 
for  it  was  then  late.  This  put  an  end  to  the  discus- 
sion, and,  after  arranging  to  meet  a  month  later,  the 
party  adjourned. 


II 

CHRISTIANITY  AND  NATURE 

THE  month  had  passed,  and  the  Mathemati- 
cian's  friends   were   again  gathered   in  his 
rooms,  the  Anthropologist  alone  having  de- 
serted them.     At  the  hour  set  the  thread  of  the  in- 
quiry was  resumed. 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  At  our  last  meeting  we 
compared  the  meanings  each  of  us  attached  to  the 
word  (  religion.'  I  think  we  all  were  interested  to  see 
how  these  supplemented  each  other.  Religion  was 
viewed  (1)  as  a  going  out  of  the  emotions  akin  to 
love  or  the  appreciation  of  beauty;  (2)  as  founded 
upon  the  search  for  the  support  and  explanation  of 
man's  sense  of  values;  (3)  as  cosmic  emotion  — 
those  feelings  which  stir  in  us  when  we  look  upon 
the  majesty  of  nature;  (4)  as  the  unison  of  the  per- 
sonal will  with  a  cosmic  or  divine  will,  the  free 
choice  of  the  better  rather  than  the  dearer;  (5)  as 
a  relation  between  God  and  man,  expressing  itself 
both  in  the  climbing  instinct,  prayer  and  service,  and 
in  strength  and  satisfaction;  (6)  as  having  its  be- 
ginnings, or  its  parallel,  far  back  of  the  life  of  man, 
and  illustrated  in  such  a  relation  as  that  of  a  dog  to 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    NATURE     33 

its  master;  (7)  as  something  more  basic  than  any 
of  these,  lying  behind  them  as  their  cause,  and 
founded  in  the  meaning  of  life  itself. 

"  Interesting  as  this  comparison  was,  and  neces- 
sary as  it  also  was  for  us  to  bring  our  individual  views 
to  some  common  focus,  I  think  we  felt  as  though  it 
were  but  an  introduction,  and  that  we  would  fail  of 
our  purpose  if  we  did  not  come  to  closer  grips  with 
the  subject  itself  than  such  debate  upon  words  and 
terms.  I  have,  therefore,  asked  the  Clergyman  to 
start  the  discussion  by  speaking  to  us  of  Christianity, 
as  illustrative  of  what  religion  means  to  him.  lie 
has  been  good  enough  to  agree  to  do  so,  though  I 
regret  I  was  unable  to  give  him  such  time  for  prep- 
aration as  he,  perhaps,  would  have  liked.  With  his 
presentment  before  us  we  can  lay  aside  the  philo- 
sophic method  of  debate  and  adopt  the  scientific  pro- 
cedure of  inquiry  instead.  Here  is  a  religion.  What 
is  its  meaning  to  me  ?  What  does  it  involve  ?  What 
presuppose  ?  What  imply  ?  With  this,  by  way  of  in- 
troduction and  review,  I  will  ask  Mr.  F —  to  begin." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  It  was  a  kindly  instinct  that 
led  Professor  A —  to  speak  of  the  short  time  given 
me  for  preparation.  But  in  fact  there  was  ample 
opportunity  to  formulate  my  talk  if  I  had  known 
just  what  was  desired.  I  had  thought  at  first  of 
writing  a  brief  paper,  but  upon  reflection  I  found 
that  this  would  grow  under  my  hand  until  it  became 

3 


34  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

an  essay  and  criticism  upon  theology,  which  I  would 
not  wish  to  inflict  upon  you. 

"  Indeed,  I  doubt  if  any  outside  the  clergy  are 
aware  how  impossible  it  is  to  find  an  authoritative  ex- 
position of  the  principles  and  beliefs  of  the  Episcopal 
Church.  There  is  no  single  compendium  of  theo- 
logical teaching,  and  if  I  were  to  attempt  to  give 
such  here,  I  could  only  support  my  views  by  refer- 
ence to  a  great  variety  of  early  Christian  writers  who 
contributed  each  some  one  or  other  element  in  the  his- 
toric development  of  the  Church.  I  am  sure  that  that 
is  not  what  you  would  wish  me  to  do,  and,  indeed,  it 
would  be  equally  repugnant  to  me,  for  it  is  just  this 
freedom  from  authoritative  interpretation  that  seems 
to  me  distinctive  of  Protestant  Christianity ;  and  even 
in  the  Roman  Church  you  will  find  authoritative  pro- 
nouncements withheld  on  many  points,  and  in  conse- 
quence, great  diversity  of  opinion  among  its  members. 
I  am  aware  that  upon  this  question  of  authority 
there  are  wide  differences  among  my  colleagues.  My 
Bishop,  for  example,  told  us  this  week  that  every 
member  of  the  clergy  should  have  a  definite  theo- 
logical system  well  grounded  in  the  history  of  the 
Church,  though,  I  believe,  he  did  not  extend  this 
requirement  to  the  laity.  But  I  would  like  it  clearly 
understood  that  for  myself  I  cannot  pretend  to  pre- 
sent here  an  authoritative  teaching,  but  can  only  give 
you  my  own  views,  —  what  religion  means  to  me. 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    NATURE     35 

"  First,  then,  as  I  look  out  upon  life,  upon  this 
marvellous  universe,  with  its  wonderful  balances  and 
harmonies  and  law,  I  am  compelled  to  believe  in  a 
guiding  intelligence  behind  it  and  animating  it.  To 
believe  the  universe  the  result  of  chance,  some  f  for- 
tuitous concourse  of  atoms/  seems  to  me,  as  St.  George 
Mivart  said,  as  absurd  as  to  suppose  that  if  one  threw 
down  at  random  the  contents  of  a  child's  box  of 
letters  they  would  be  found  arranged  so  as  to  spell 
a  beautiful  poem.  Such  a  thing  is  not  thinkable, 
and  the  richer  and  more  wonderful  you,  gentlemen, 
show  us  nature  to  be,  the  stronger  is  my  conviction 
of  the  intelligence  supporting  it.  This  intelligence 
I  deem  infinite  —  infinitely  transcending  my  own, 
yet  supporting  and  related  to  my  own.  And  the  log- 
ical necessity  for  the  existence  of  this  intelligence  is 
the  logical  necessity  for  the  existence  of  God. 

"  Next,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  universe  is  not  still, 
but  in  motion ;  in  constant  change  and  growth ;  that 
through  these  myriads  of  changing  forms  of  life  there 
is  manifest  not  only  intelligence,  but  an  intelligence 
directed  toward  a  definite  end,  —  a  co-ordinated 
thought  and  will  whose  end  is  righteousness.  As  the 
words  of  a  spoken  sentence,  one  by  one,  reveal  the 
thought  behind  them,  so  is  the  end  of  their  sequence 
the  complete  expression  of  that  thought.  Thus,  as 
the  psalmist  has  phrased  it,  i  the  heavens  declare  the 
glory  of  God  and  the  firmament  showeth  His  handi- 


36  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

work.'  The  end  of  life,  of  that  long  evolutionary 
chain  you  have  taught  us  to  see,  is  righteousness  — 
the  fulfilment  of  the  thought  of  God.  There  is  thus 
a  constant  progress  toward  the  spiritual. 

"  Again,  as  we  look  back  either  into  human  his- 
tory or  upon  the  lower  forms  of  life  we  see  the  be- 
ginning, the  germ  of  the  present  in  the  past.  The 
great  strides  forward  we  have  taken,  the  wonderful 
development  and  betterment,  all  had  their  origin  in 
the  past  and  were  in  a  certain  sense  already  present 
in  the  past.  So  to-day  we  have  within  us  the  germ 
of  the  future,  of  the  progress  yet  to  be  toward  a 
higher  consciousness ;  toward  a  broader,  freer,  nobler 
life.  And  in  a  sense  this  is  already  present  in  us. 
It  waits  only  for  us  to  recognise  it;  for  us  to  lay 
joyous  hold  upon  what  we  can  be  and  are  to  be ;  and 
to  realise  and  express  it  in  our  thoughts  and  acts. 

"  This  leads  me  to  my  view  of  man  and  of  human 
life.  I  think  we  should  view  the  personal  man  as 
but  a  scaffolding  upon  which  we  build  the  spiritual 
man.  This  is  what  St.  Paul  called  the  '  new  man/ 
born  from  above,  for  we  build  it  in  the  likeness  of 
what  is  beyond  and  above  us ;  in  the  likeness  of  our 
vision  of  God,  of  the  ideals  we  sense  but  have  not 
reached,  of  our  strivings,  our  aspirations,  and  our 
prayers.  We  are  building  this  whenever  we  seek 
unison  with  God,  and,  as  I  defined  religion  as  the 
relation  between  man  and  God,  so  I  would  define  a 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    NATURE     37 

religious  act  as  something  done  with  the  idea  and 
purpose  of  strengthening  this  relation  and  establish- 
ing a  closer  unison.  To  go  to  church  may  or  may  not 
be  a  religious  act,  according  to  the  motive  which 
takes  us  there.  To  help  a  comrade,  to  sacrifice  our- 
selves, to  do  good  to  those  around  us,  —  these  are 
equally  religious  acts.  Indeed,  any  act  is  religious 
if  it  is  done  from  love  of  good,  from  the  desire  for 
unison  with  the  spirit  of  love  and  righteousness,  as 
an  expression  of  the  relation  between  man  and  God, 
or  with  the  thought  of  unity  with  God  and  a  looking 
to  Him.  Every  such  act  is  an  act  of  construction. 
There  follows  from  it  a  change  and  a  growth  of 
moral  fibre. 

"  It  is  not  alone  the  scientist  whose  attitude  toward 
life  is  a  question.  Consciously  or  unconsciously  we 
are  always  questioning  the  great  universal  life  around 
us  and  answering  our  questions  in  our  acts.  Accord- 
ing to  our  questions  are  our  lives,  and  these  can  be 
divided  into  two  great  classes,  —  those  who  ask : 
What  can  life  give  to  me  ?  and  those  who  ask :  What 
can  I  give  to  life?  The  first  is  the  attitude  of  the 
sensualist  and  the  huckster.  The  second  seems  to 
me  the  attitude  of  the  religious  man.  There  is  no 
bargaining  in  religion;  no  thought  of  gain  in  a  gift 
of  love.  And  in  return  life  gives  us  ourselves ;  builds 
for  us  a  spiritual  self  in  which  we  can  know  it  and 
God. 


38  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

"  Perhaps  the  most  remarkable  thing  in  the  entire 
history  of  the  Christian  Church  is  the  rapidity  with 
which  it  departed  from  the  teachings  of  Jesus  and 
ran  off  the  track.  It  is  remarkable  (though  expli- 
cable enough  when  one  considers  the  environment  of 
the  Church  in  the  first  centuries  of  its  existence)  how 
early  Christianity  was  paganised;  for  that  is  pre- 
cisely what  happened.  Jesus  gathered  around  Him 
a  handful  of  simple  folk  —  fishermen  and  the  like, 
who  had  neither  special  insight  nor  learning  —  and 
talked  with  them  of  the  love  of  God  and  the  service 
of  God  and  man ;  putting  forward  the  ideal  of  giving 
to  life  and  to  others  rather  than  of  taking  for  oneself, 
and  promising,  as  the  result,  knowledge  and  com- 
munion of  the  spirit  with  God.  There  was  no  sys- 
tem, no  rites  of  propitiation  or  of  sacrifice.  There 
was  a  life,  lived  clearly  and  strongly,  of  service  and 
of  worship  —  of  union  with  God. 

"  Within  two  centuries  this  had  changed.  One 
by  one  the  older  forms  of  ritual,  prevalent  in  the 
Jewish  or  ancient  pagan  faiths,  had  been  ingrafted 
upon  Christianity,  changed  in  appearance,  but  still 
recognisable.  Particularly  was  this  true  with  the 
idea  of  sacrifice.  The  gods  of  the  Romans  and  the 
Jehovah  of  the  Jews  had  alike  been  worshipped  with 
sacrifices,  and  so  deep  grained  had  this  become  that 
Christianity  could  only  be  accepted  by  viewing  Christ 
as  the  perpetual  sacrifice.  In  the  ritual  of  the  mass 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    NATURE     39 

this  was  taught  and  emphasised.  Yet  to  me  this 
seems  foreign  to  the  whole  spirit  of  Christianity. 

"  I  remember  to  have  been  impressed  with  this 
thought  when  I  visited  the  Public  Library  at  Boston, 
and  saw  Sargent's  mural  paintings.  One  represents 
Egyptian  and  Assyrian  nature-worships  as  the  back- 
ground for  the  Mosaic  law,  and  as  a  preface  to  the 
prophets  of  Israel.  The  picture  is  full  of  monstrous 
astronomical,  animal,  and  human  symbols  of  fiery 
devotion  to  the  instincts  of  the  flesh,  which  give 
place  to  the  dignified  figures  of  Hebrew  prophets, 
standing  in  a  row  underneath  the  symbolic  confusion 
of  cruder  faiths.  The  prophets,  human,  isolated,  rapt, 
represent  conscience  and  the  mind  in  communion 
with  God  —  so  ethical  religion  is  shown  emerging 
from  sacrificial  religion.  At  the  other  end  of  the 
hall,  in  a  lunette,  is  Jesus  the  Christ.  But  under 
what  guise  is  He  depicted!  He  who  showed  that 
religion  was  Love,  who  placed  above  all  the  law  and 
the  prophets  the  love  of  God  and  the  love  of  man, 
who  taught  us  the  way  of  service  and  the  path  of  the 
spirit,  who  said  of  Himself  that  He  was  the  way,  the 
truth,  and  the  life,  is  shown  to  us  as  dead  and  limp, 
hanging  on  the  cross,  with  angels  catching  the  blood 
which  drips  from  His  hands.  Here  is  a  return  to 
sacrificial  religion. 

"  This  sacrificial  system,  ingrafted  on  Christian- 
ity, conceals  and  distorts  its  meaning.  Such  a  rep- 


40  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

reservation  is  Byzantine  Christianity  and  Roman 
Christianity,  but  it  is  not  the  Christianity  of  Galilee 
—  not  the  religion  of  Jesus,  for  that  was  the  ful- 
filment of  the  prophetic,  ethical  ideal.  Christianity 
is  not  concerned  with  the  dead,  but  the  living.  The 
essential  teaching  of  Jesus  is  not  that  His  body 
died  to  ransom  us,  but  that  His  spirit  lives  to  in- 
spire us. 

"  The  God  of  Christ's  teaching  is  not  only  the 
spirit  of  righteousness,  but  a  Heavenly  Father,  to 
be  approached  freely  and  unafraid,  requiring  no 
mediator,  no  sacrifices,  asking  no  gift  but  our  love. 
For  if  we  love  God  we  will  seek  union  with  Him. 
And  seeking  union  we  will  fulfil  His  will.  I  have 
never  been  able  to  see  that  Jesus  taught  a  sacrificial 
system;  on  the  contrary  He  opposed  its  idea  and  its 
effects.  In  many  ways  the  liberal  Christianity  of 
to-day  is  nearer  Christ  than  the  Church  has  ever 
been  before. 

"  I  have  taken  more  time  than  I  had  intended, 
and  I  am  by  no  means  sure  that  this  is  the  sort  of 
talk  you  wished  to  hear  from  me.  I  believe,  how- 
ever, that  the  points  I  have  so  inadequately  touched 
upon  will  repay  consideration." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  You  have  given  us,  Mr. 
F — ,  just  what  we  wanted  to  focus  our  thought,  and 
we  are  all  much  indebted  to  you.  For  my  own  part, 
I  would  like  a  fuller  discussion  upon  many  of  the 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    NATURE     41 

points  you  have  raised.  Indeed,  so  suggestive  are 
they  that  it  is  hard  to  know  where  to  begin,  unless 
we  take  them  up  in  the  order  of  your  presentation. 
You  commenced,  if  I  remember  rightly,  by  giving 
us  certain  logical  arguments  for  the  existence  of  a 
guiding  intelligence  behind  life  as  we  see  it  (whether 
we  ascribe  this  intelligence  to  a  pantheistic  or  a 
personal  God),  and  the  inevitable  corollary  that  man 
is  in  relation  to  this  intelligence  and  power  for 
righteousness.  Now  I  have  often  wondered  whether 
any  one's  religious  life  was  in  fact  founded  on  such 
arguments.  I  confess  it  seems  to  me  that  these 
reasons  are  more  frequently  constructed  to  convince 
others  than  ourselves,  and  that  it  would  be  well  to 
label  them  plainly  '  for  export  only.'  In  saying  this 
I  am  not  attacking  the  validity  of  the  argument,  but 
its  necessity  and  actual  usefulness.  Is  it  not  true 
in  your  case,  as  I  know  it  is  in  mine,  that  your 
religious  feeling  is  founded  on  something  far  more 
fundamental  in  your  nature  than  is  argument  ?  Does 
it  not  rest  upon  an  interior  instinct  or  direct  per- 
ception, a  simple  turning  of  your  nature,  as  obvious 
and  as  much  a  matter  of  fact  to  you  as  is  the  fact 
(not  that  an  argument  is  true,  but)  that  you  think 
at  all  ?  It  seems  to  me  that  religious  feeling  is  fully 
as  fundamental  as  thought  its.elf,  and  that  to  at- 
tempt to  base  it  upon  an  argument  is  a  purely  arti- 
ficial proceeding,  indulged  in  only  because  we  can- 


42  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

not  impart  to  others  the  real  basis  of  our  own 
certainty." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  I  am  not  sure  that  I  have 
entirely  grasped  your  thought.  I  would  agree  that 
religious  feeling  is  very  fundamental,  but  I  know 
my  mind  also  seeks  its  intellectual  justification." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  That  is  a  way  the  mind 
has.  It  insists  upon  an  intellectual  and  logical  ex- 
planation of  all  sorts  of  things  —  such  as  love  and 
honour  and  unselfishness,  or  the  appreciation  of  a 
sunset,  or  one's  enjoyment  of  music  —  things  which 
it  is  impossible  to  prove  have  a  logical  explanation. 
And  if  we  do  not  satisfy  the  mind  it  is  quite  likely 
to  deny  these  things  altogether  and  persuade  us  we 
do  not  see  what  we  do.  In  consequence  I  think  we 
get  into  the  habit  of  concocting  explanations  for 
the  mind;  feeding  it  reasons,  so  as  to  be  left  in 
peace.  But  really  it  seems  to  me  a  pandering  to  a 
sort  of  mental  piggishness,  a  vanity  of  intellect  which 
is  quite  unwarranted.  Who  was  the  mythological 
personage  who  fed  on  his  or  her  children  ?  Whoever 
it  was  is  a  good  image  of  the  mind,  seeking  to  ab- 
sorb what  it  has  no  concern  with  and  devouring 
instead  its  own  thoughts." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  As  I  understand  you,  Mr.  F — , 
you  implied  that  the  end  of  the  religious  life,  or 
salvation,  was  a  matter  of  unity  with  God,  and  that 
this  end  might  be  attained  in  various  ways  —  in  fact 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    NATURE     43 

by  any  consistent  life  devoted  to  the  love  of  God 
and  service  of  God.  Would  you  be  willing  to  say 
that  while  the  teaching  of  Jesus  constituted  one  such 
way  —  I  am  sure  you  would  say  the  best  way  — 
that  the  path  taught  by  others  might  reach  the  same 
goal  ?  That  is,  that  Krishna  and  Buddha  and  other 
great  religious  teachers  might  have  been  looking  to 
the  same  God  as  did  Jesus,  and  teaching  their  dis- 
ciples practices  suited  to  their  lives  and  times,  which 
led  to  the  same  union  that  Jesus  inculcated  ? " 

THE  CLEEGYMAN  :  "  Yes,  I  see  no  reason  why  one 
should  not  think  that.  But  I  consider  the  Christian 
idea  of  God  more  active,  more  in  accord  with  the 
vigour  of  the  human  will  and  with  the  scientific 
history  of  the  universe  than  the  Buddhist  idea  of 
God." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  doubt  whether  many 
Western  thinkers  appreciate  just  what  the  Buddhist 
concept  is.  I  know  Max  Miiller  never  did." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  I  have  been  most  interested  in 
what  you  have  said,  Mr.  F — ,  and  particularly  in 
your  allusion  to  the  speed  with  which  Christianity 
jumped  the  track,  and,  I  would  add,  the  complete- 
ness and  the  thoroughness  with  which  it  departed 
from  its  original  spirit.  This  has  been  a  source  of 
constant  wonder  to  me,  as  I  think  it  is  to  every 
student  of  history,  and  this  wonder  deepens,  as  we 
follow  the  history  of  the  Church  through  the  Middle 


44  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

Ages,  into  the  most  profound  admiration  of  the 
capacity  of  the  Church  fathers  to  misinterpret  and 
to  misrepresent.  The  crimes  that  have  been  com- 
mitted in  the  name  of  Christianity!  The  aggres- 
sion abroad,  the  extortion  at  home,  the  cruelty,  tor- 
ture, and  murder,  the  magnification  of  pomp  and 
splendour,  the  ambition  for  worldly  power  and  the 
unswerving  relentlessness  of  a  beast  of  prey;  what 
one  of  these  was  not  preached  and  practised  in  the 
name  of  Christ  by  the  Church  which  claimed  to 
follow  Him!  You  speak  of  the  paganising  of  the 
Christian  ceremony,  but  what  can  we  say  of  the 
'  Christianising  ?  of  the  human  heart  —  the  instil- 
ling of  black  fear  of  death,  the  making  of  a  free 
man  a  cringing  coward  before  the  thought  of  eternal 
torture  —  torture  whose  meaning  the  Church  daily 
showed  him  in  life  ?  The  Church  spread  a  pall  over 
human  life  which  lingers  even  to  this  day.  For  what 
other  race  fears  death  as  do  we  ? 

"  The  more  reverently  we  view  the  life  and  teach- 
ing of  Jesus,  the  more  we  marvel  at  such  phenomena 
as  these.  As  you  have  said,  the  edifice  of  dogma 
built  upon  such  simple  foundations  is  sufficiently 
astounding,  but  this  complete  moral  reversal  is 
unequalled." 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  I  do  not  think  we  should  over- 
look the  other  side  of  the  picture.  If  the  history 
of  the  Church  presents  such  dark  blots,  it  is  also 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    NATURE     45 

full  of  very  inspiring  acts  of  heroism  and  nobility. 
The  faith  that  produced  the  martyrs  cannot  be  said 
to  have  inculcated  only  fear  of  death.  Read  the 
records  of  the  Jesuit  Missionaries  in  Asia,  in  Africa, 
or  among  the  Indians  in  America.  Moreover,  even 
when  the  Church  was  at  its  worst,  there  never  lacked 
those  who  sought  to  follow  the  example  of  Jesus, 
and  who  had  that  inner  illumination  which  comes 
from  living  one's  beliefs.  Remember  that  St.  Francis 
of  Assisi,  for  example,  was  leading  his  followers  to 
poverty,  meekness,  and  the  imitation  of  Christ,  while 
Innocent  III  was  magnifying  the  pomp  and  power 
of  the  Papal  chair. " 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  Naturally  there  are  two 
sides  to  a  religion  that  was  officially  inculcated  as 
a  transaction,  but  which  saints  discovered  was  a 
life." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  wonder  if  our  biolo- 
gists would  not  see  in  this  an  example  of  Mendel7 s 
law  of  hybrids.  It  would  seem  that  from  one  point 
of  view  at  least  Jesus's  mission  and  teaching  was 
premature.  The  world  at  large,  or  at  least  those 
Western  people  to  whom  His  message  came,  had  not 
evolved  either  ethically  or  spiritually  to  the  point 
where  they  could  assimilate  such  ideals.  Something, 
however,  in  the  manner  of  their  presentment,  or  in 
the  political  and  social  conditions  of  the  times,  led 
to  their  adoption.  The  result  was  a  genuine  hybrid 


46  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

—  a  bastard  product,  full  of  hyprocrisy  and  pre- 
tence, showing  the  worst  features  of  both  parents, 
as  half-breeds  seem  to  do.  Yet,  as  hybrids  also  do, 
breeding  progeny,  pure-blooded  and  true  to  each 
parent,  as  well  as  hybrids  like  itself. 

"  In  the  light  of  this  analogy  we  would  expect 
the  Middle  Ages  to  present  precisely  the  phenomenon 
described.  First  we  would  have  the  hypocritical 
churchman;  sensuality  and  ambition  masked  as  re- 
ligion. And  on  either  side  we  would  have  reversions 
to  the  true  types.  On  the  one  hand  the  genuine 
pagan,  with  the  pagan  strength  and  virtues,  as  well 
as  the  pagan  vices;  the  worshipper  of  physical 
strength  and  courage;  the  warrior  and  the  adven- 
turer, fearing  neither  God  nor  man.  On  the  other 
we  would  have  the  genuine  Christian,  such  men  as 
St.  Francis  of  Assisi,  and  the  long  unbroken  line  of 
Christian  mystics  like  him,  whose  lives  were  often 
obscure  and  little  known,  but  whose  aspiration  and 
piety  light  the  history  of  Christianity. 

"  We  would  also  have  an  explanation  of  certain 
present  day  features.  For  as  our  ethical  standards 
have  gradually  been  raised  we  have  become  more 
and  more  capable  of  assimilating  Christ's  teaching. 
Our  Christianity  is,  I  believe,  far  less  of  a  hybrid 
than  it  was  in  the  past  centuries.  Indeed,  I  am  be- 
ginning to  think,  not  only,  as  Mr.  F —  said,  that 
we  are  nearer  now  to  the  right  view  of  Jesus' s  mean- 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    NATURE    47 

ing  than  ever  before,  but  that  the  real  Christian  era 
may  still  be  to  come." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  I  would  like  to  ask 
what  warrant  you  have  for  the  belief  in  a  power  in 
nature  which  makes  for  righteousness  ?  Or  where 
you  see  this  vast  improvement  of  which  you  speak  ?  " 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  Surely  that  must  be  evident. 
Compare  the  condition  of  the  world  to-day  with 
what  it  was  a  thousand  years  ago.  Does  one  need 
any  other  argument  than  that  simple  contrast  ? " 

THE  HISTORIAN :  "I  think,  Dr.  I — ,  you  will 
have  to  grant  us  that  we  are  better  than  we  were. 
The  very  fact  that  we  are  discussing  such  questions 
may  be  taken  as  proof  of  it,  for  consider  the  fate 
that  would  have  been  meted  to  us  a  few  centuries 
ago.  I  will  grant  you  the  faults  of  our  civilisation, 
but  every  student  of  history  must  acknowledge  its 
improvement  upon  the  past.  Indeed  I  think  the 
most  remarkable  thing  about  our  civilisation  and  the 
thought  of  the  world  to-day,  is  the  increase  in  the 
spirit  of  brotherliness  and  of  unity.  Personally  I 
do  not  believe  that  Christianity  is  entitled  to  the 
credit  for  this,  —  as  one  sometimes  hears  stated,  — 
but  it  is  none  the  less  noteworthy." 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  I  quite  agree  with  you,  Professor 
B — .  Our  postal  and  telegraph  system,  our  railways 
and  steamships,  the  constant  interchange  in  com- 
merce and  science,  and  even  in  war,  have  unified 


48  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

the  nations  as  they  never  were  before,  and  our  daily 
newspaper  brings  us  the  thought  and  happenings  of 
the  whole  world.  I  think  this  is  leading  to  some- 
thing quite  new  in  history,  namely,  the  conscious- 
ness of  humanity  as  a  whole,  or  of  the  world  thought 
and  life  as  a  single  unit.  I  believe  it  an  immense 
gain  to  have  approached  such  a  wider  consciousness." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHEB  :  "  I  must  confess  that 
you  gentlemen  have  failed  to  convince  me.  I  asked 
what  warrant  you  had  for  believing  in  a  power  which 
makes  for  good  in  nature;  for  advocating  a  moral 
quality  and  uplifting  element  in  natural  process  and 
universal  law.  You  have  all  replied  by  speaking 
of  the  change  in  our  civilisation  and  the  condition 
of  man.  Now  it  seems  to  me  that  even  there  there 
are  very  weak  points  in  the  argument.  I  might,  for 
example,  point  out  that  as  one  civilisation  has  arisen, 
another  has  declined.  Simply  because  we  ourselves 
have  risen  from  barbarism  in  the  last  few  thousand 
years,  is  no  good  reason  for  assuming  that  the  whole 
human  race  has  done  the  same.  What  of  the  civi- 
lisations of  Babylon,  of  India,  China,  and  Egypt? 
Truly  our  own  lot  may  be  better  to-day  than  was 
our  ancestors'  a  thousand  or  five  thousand  years  ago, 
but  is  the  same  true  of  the  Egyptian  fellaheen? 
And  we  all  know  that  every  Irishman  was  once  a 
king! 

"  But,  granting  the  improvement  in  man's  condi- 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    NATURE     49 

tion,  does  it  not  seem  to  you  that  man's  place  in 
nature  is  very  small,  and  that  Nature  herself,  '  red 
in  tooth  and  claw/  is  far  from  moral,  but  rather 
cruel  and  relentless  ?  Is  our  boasted  evolution  a 
moral  evolution?  Or  a  moral  process?  And  even 
granted  that  the  assumed  greater  value  of  the  more 
complex  organisms  justified  the  means  by  which 
they  are  evolved,  —  even  granting  that,  is  not  ani- 
mate nature  itself  lost  in  the  great  sweep  of  the 
inanimate  universe  ?  What  is  man's  life  compared 
to  this  vast  mechanism?  A  speck  of  mould  upon  a 
grain  of  sand.  Where  is  the  moral  element  in  this 
universe  of  chemistry  and  physics  and  mechanics? 
In  a  cooling  sun  that  will  wipe  life  away  as  the 
rising  tide  scours  the  shore  ?  " 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  am  afraid  I  have  lost 
the  thread  of  your  argument.  Why  is  it  that  I  must 
find  morality  in  natural  processes  ?  " 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  Because  you  and 
Mr.  ~F —  are  basing  your  religious  feeling  upon  such 
a  faith.  You  speak  of  the  power  which  makes  for 
good  in  nature  and  seek  to  unite  yourselves  there- 
with. I  am  questioning  the  existence  of  such  a 
power." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Let  us  then  put  the 
matter  in  another  way.  Whether  or  no  law  is  moral, 
you  will  grant  me  that  this  is  a  universe  of  law? 
That  throughout  inanimate  as  well  as  animate  na- 

4 


50  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

ture  things  act  and  react  according  to  one  law  or 
another  ? " 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER:  "Yes.     Well?" 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  And  that  the  difference 
between  things  is  a  difference  in  the  laws  which 
they  obey?  The  matter  of  this  chair  differs  from 
the  iron  of  the  lamp,  in  that  one  obeys  one  set  of 
laws  and  the  other  another.  The  one  will  unite 
with  oxygen  and  burn  in  the  air,  the  other  will  not. 
The  distinction  between  them,  and  the  character  of 
each,  is  wholly  a  matter  of  laws  which  they  obey. 
Evolution,  for  example,  is  a  gradual  change  in  the 
laws  obeyed  by  the  evolving  type  ? " 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  Yes,  but  how  does 
that  touch  the  problem  ?  " 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  In  this  way.  Man, 
whether  in  a  moral  universe  or  not,  is  then  in  a 
universe  of  law.  Within  limits  he  has  the  definite 
choice  of  the  way  in  which  he  will  act  and  react 
upon  his  surroundings.  In  other  words,  he  can  him- 
self determine  the  laws  he  will  obey.  And  the  laws 
he  obeys  determine  what  he  is  and  what  he  becomes. 
He  is  at  each  moment  determining  his  own  evolu- 
tion. If  he  chooses  to  obey  the  laws  of  selfishness, 
of  lethargy,  of  pleasure,  he  becomes  one  thing,  self- 
ish, lethargic,  and  pleasure-loving.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  he  obeys  the  spiritual  and  moral  laws  of  as- 
piration and  effort  and  unselfishness,  he  becomes  the 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    NATURE     51 

moral  and  spiritual  man  of  which  the  Clergyman 
spoke.  In  either  case  he  unifies  himself  with  a  defi- 
nite principle  and  law." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  Perhaps ;  but  I  do 
not  think  the  identification  of  oneself  with  mere 
law  is  calculated  to  arouse  enthusiasm  as  an  end 
and  object  for  life.  No,  I  prefer  to  follow  my  own 
ideals;  to  recognise  them  as  my  own;  small,  per- 
haps, and  very  feeble  set  over  against  the  might  of 
nature,  but  high  and  noble,  or,  at  all  events,  what 
seem  good  to  me.  This  is  what  I  wish  to  win  and 
work  for  —  the  only  thing  for  which  it  is  worth 
while  to  give  one's  life." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  do  not  believe  we  differ 
as  much  as  I  thought  at  first.  Only  it  seems  to  me 
you  are  not  warranted  in  severing  yourself  from 
nature.  You  yourself  are  in  the  universe  and  part 
of  it.  If  you  think,  there  is  thought  in  the  world. 
To  that  extent  at  least  the  universe  is  thinking.  If 
there  are  aspirations  and  ideals  and  morality  in  your 
heart,  there  is  aspiration  and  moral  law  in  nature. 
It  may  be  great  or  it  may  be  small,  but  it  is  there." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  That  is  just  the 
point.  The  extent  to  which  moral  law  is  manifest 
in  the  universe  is  far  too  small  to  justify  us  in  as- 
suming that  its  ends  are  moral  ends,  or  that  it  works 
to  good.  Great,  big,  blundering,  clumsy  thing  that 
it  is!" 


52  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  I  entirely  agree  with  what  the 
Social  Philosopher  has  been  saying.  From  a  bio- 
logical point  of  view  at  least,  there  is  little  ground 
for  idealising  nature's  processes.  If,  for  example, 
one  takes  the  biological  idea  of  '  good/  that  is,  that 
which  tends  to  fulfil  the  two  first  biological  laws  of 
preservation  of  individual  life  and  the  preservation 
of  the  species,  one  sees  waste  and  evil  on  all  sides. 
One  need  only  appeal  to  the  familiar  examples  of 
blight  and  storm,  earthquake  and  hurricane,  which 
in  sheer  wanton  destruction  undo  the  long,  slow  work 
of  years;  or  to  the  cruelty  of  this  cannibalistic 
scheme  whereby  life  feeds  on  life;  or  again  to  the 
process  of  reproduction  itself.  Consider,  for  in- 
stance, the  poor  little  tape-worm,  which  has  to  lay 
three  hundred  million  eggs  that  one  may  survive 
and  come  to  fruition." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  It  may  like  it  for  all  you  know. 
For  my  own  part  I  don't  see  much  loss." 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  That  is  your  point  of  view. 
But  how  about  the  point  of  view  of  the  two  hun- 
dred and  ninety-nine  million,  nine  hundred  and 
ninety-nine  thousand,  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine 
embryos  which  do  not  survive  ?  " 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  Is  not  survival  a  more  or  less 
relative  term?  Those  two  hundred  million  odd  em- 
bryos you  speak  of  had  existence  of  a  kind,  and 
then  passed  away.  What  more  do  you  or  I?  Is  it 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    NATURE     53 

not  possible  to  draw  an  analogy  from  humanity 
itself  ?  Perhaps  to  some  higher  order  of  intelligence 
looking  down  upon  man's  life,  it  may  seem  that 
only  the  geniuses  of  the  human  race  have  in  any 
real  sense  lived;  or,  as  you  put  it,  reached  fruition 
and  survived.  How  many  millions  of  men  have  been 
born  to  produce  one  genius!  How  rare  they  are! 
Yet  how  barren  that  civilisation  whose  history  is 
without  them! 

"  We  do  not  feel  this  to  be  an  immoral  arrange- 
ment. And  though  so  few  ever  really  live,  yet  all 
profit  and  share  in  the  life  of  those  who  do.  As  a 
civilisation  flowers  in  its  geniuses,  so  does  their  work 
contain  its  seed,  its  gift  to  the  ages  and  to  all  man- 
kind. The  great  artists  and  the  great  writers  have 
synthesised  for  us  an  epoch  and  a  people,  have  re- 
corded them  with  a  discernment  and  a  breadth  of 
view  we  never  reached,  but  in  which  now  we  share. 

"  I  think  we  get  truer  views  of  life  when  we  look 
thus  at  the  things  we  know  than  when  we  try  to 
imagine  the  psychology  of  insects  or  animals.77 

THE  BANKER  :  "  I  would  like  to  ask  the  Zoologist 
a  question.  Both  he,  in  his  illustrations,  and  the 
Social  Philosopher,  in  alluding  to  a  cooling  sun, 
made  the  assumption  that  the  preservation  of  life  is 
the  highest  good.  What  right  have  you  to  put  this 
'  biological  good 7  in  place  of  our  ordinary  moral 
concepts  as  a  criterion  of  moral  law  ? 77 


54  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  This  right :  that  I  believe  we 
can  trace  all  our  moral  concepts  as  evolutionary  prod- 
ucts from  biological  principles.  Take,  for  example, 
the  second  '  great  commandment '  taught  by  Jesus : 
'  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself.7  This  is 
a  law  of  self-preservation  for  all  animals  that  live  in 
packs.  The  safety  and  well-being  of  one  depends 
upon  the  well-being  and  strength  of  the  whole.  If 
the  pack  is  diseased  in  health  or  reduced  in  numbers, 
then  every  individual  in  it  is  in  danger.  It  '  pays ' 
to  share  alike.  I  think  all  our  ethical  standards  are 
derivable  in  the  same  fashion." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  That  is  an  extremely  in- 
teresting thesis.  But  has  it  occurred  to  you  what  an 
extraordinary  type  of  '  entire  agreement '  exists  be- 
tween what  you  have  been  saying  and  the  views  of 
Dr.  I — ,  which  you  championed?  While  Dr.  I — 
maintained  that  morality  and  ideals  existed  only  in 
man,  you  would  show  us  that  they  are,  in  fact,  bio- 
logical law.  Now,  if  I  believed  there  was  really 
any  great  difference  between  my  views  and  those  of 
Dr.  I — ,  I  would  claim  that  you  were  my  ally  rather 
than  his.  But  for  the  present  I  fail  to  see  why  it 
is  necessary  to  assume  that  the  universe  is  either 
moral  or  immoral.  Why  is  it  touched  by  morality 
at  all?  Are  not  morality  and  immorality  smaller 
things,  applicable  to  a  finite  part,  but  losing  their 
significance  when  extended  to  the  infinite  whole  ? " 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    NATURE    55 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  Your  idea  is  that  of  '  a 
splendid,  unethical  God  '  ?  " 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  But  is  not  that  ad- 
mission very  dangerous  to  the  whole  religious  point 
of  view?  Is  not  the  characteristic  of  the  ordinary 
religious  faith  the  belief  that  man's  ideals  are  uni- 
versal laws  ?  That  good  is  permanent  and  will  pre- 
vail? Does  not  your  fundamental  attitude  require 
this  assumption,  and  once  departed  from  do  you 
know  where  you  will  end  ? " 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  fear  I  do  not.  But 
whether  dangerous  or  no,  this  is  the  way  it  looks  for 
the  moment,  and  we  will  see  where  it  leads  us  by 
following  it,  even  if  we  do  so  with  misgivings.  Let 
me  elaborate  my  thought  for  a  moment.  What  is  the 
origin  of  our  ethical  feeling?  You  speak  of  it  as 
an  ideal  held  within  our  own  hearts,  and  to  which 
nature  is  more  or  less  antagonistic.  The  Zoologist 
says  the  same,  yet  finds  the  origin  of  that  ideal  in 
natural  biological  law.  E"ow  it  seems  to  me  that 
an  act  of  ours  is  moral  or  immoral  according  as 
it  is  or  is  not  in  accordance  with  our  evolution. 
The  picture  of  the  next  step,  as  it  were,  in  that 
evolution  is  held  in  our  hearts  as  an  ideal,  as 
our  ethical  and  moral  standard.  Equally  true  is 
it  that  this  next  step  is  in  the  same  general 
direction  as  the  previous  ones  (as  our  evolution 
must  be  continuous),  so  it  is  natural  for  us  to  find 


56  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

the  origin  of  these  ethical  standards  in  biological 
efficiency. 

"  The  standard  of  ethics  is  thus  not  fixed  for  all 
types  of  life,  but  varies  according  to  place  in  the 
evolutionary  scale.  If  morality  is  thus  an  adjust- 
ment of  the  individual  to  evolution  —  that  is,  to  a 
universal  process,  or  the  relation  of  the  part  to  the 
whole  —  it  seems  absurd  to  speak  of  the  processes 
themselves,  or  the  whole  itself,  as  either  moral  or 
immoral.  Have  we  not  now  an  escape  from  our  diffi- 
culties? The  religious  instinct  appears  again  as  a 
desire  for  union  with  God,  with  the  great  moving 
breath  of  life,  which  plays  through  us  and  through 
all  creatures.  Because  this  stream  of  life  flows 
through  us  in  a  given  direction,  we  call  this  direc- 
tion good  or  moral,  while  in  reality  it  is  only  good 
for  us  at  this  point.  It  is  not  the  constancy  of  the 
direction  that  is  essential,  but  the  continuity  of  the 
current." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  I  also  see  no  reason  for  attrib- 
uting moral  responsibility  to  natural  law.  Things 
are  as  they  are.  Nobody  thinks  of  questioning  the 
morality  of  a  proposition  of  geometry,  nor  consider- 
ing that  an  injustice  is  done  to  2  because  2  and  2 
don't  make  5,  or  some  other  number  more  than  4. 
It  takes  three  hundred  million  eggs  to  make  a  tape- 
worm. Well,  that 's  a  question  of  fact.  It  is  no 
more  immoral  than  that  it  should  take  three  eggs  to 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    NATURE    57 

make  a  cake.  Tape-worms  are  more  expensive  than 
cakes,  that  is  all,  and  on  the  whole  1 'm  glad  they 
are.  Perhaps  in  time  nature  will  be  unable  to  afford 
them  altogether.  Nor  do  I  see  any  valid  ground  of 
objection  on  the  part  of  the  eggs.  They  have  had 
whatever  kind  of  life  a  tape-worm's  egg  is  supposed 
to  have.  One  of  them  goes  on  and  becomes  a  tape- 
worm. Perhaps,  from  the  sad  picture  you  have  drawn 
of  its  lot  as  a  parent,  it  wishes  that  it  had  not !  " 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  My  poor  tape- worm !  " 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  Yes,  I  find  it  very  difficult  to 
grow  sentimental  over  the  fate  of  those  eggs.  Un- 
realised possibilities?  Why,  the  world  is  full  of 
them.  Were  it  not,  the  world  would  end.  What  are 
you  and  what  am  I  ?  And  they  are  not  half  so  sad 
as  would  be  their  absence.  Think  for  a  moment  of 
there  being  nothing  more  within  us,  nothing  that  we 
had  not  worked  out  and  fulfilled. 

"  But  the  whole  trouble  is  the  importation  of  a 
set  of  ideas  into  an  environment  where  they  do  not 
belong.  Drummond's  '  Natural  Law  in  the  Spiritual 
World '  is  the  sort  of  thing  I  mean ;  a  reasoning 
from  analogies  which  do  not  exist,  and  the  conse- 
quent falsification  of  both  religion  and  science." 

THE  BANKEK  :  "  I  wonder  whether  if  the  Zoologist 
had  the  power  he  would  alter  the  death  rate  in  tape- 
worms' eggs." 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  I  don't  believe  I  would !  " 


68  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

THE  BANKER  :  "  Then  in  this  particular,  at  all 
events,  nature's  practice  does  not  differ  from  your 
own  ethical  standard?  True,  you  might  regret  the 
short-sightedness  of  the  eggs,  who  could  be  assumed 
to  view  their  death  as  a  personal  misfortune,  but 
still  you  would  realise  that  it  was  best  for  the  world 
as  a  whole  and  would  act  as  nature  does.  Granted 
this,  I  think  your  illustration  fails  to  help  your 
contention  of  nature's  immorality." 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  I  spoke  of  nature's  waste  and 
cruelty." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "Wasteful  of  what  ?  Force 
never  dies,  nor  energy,  nor  does  matter  lessen,  or 
consciousness  or  feeling  ever  cease.  The  form  alone 
changes.  And  from  each  form  some  new  thing  is 
gained.  Cruel?  It  surely  seems  so.  But  in  our 
own  lives  would  we  be  without  what  we  have  gained 
from  suffering?  I  suspect  much  of  the  cruelty  is 
only  apparent ;  an  importation  of  our  own  ideas  such 
as  the  Historian  spoke  of.  My  window  there,  for 
instance,  looks  across  into  a  small,  old,  rickety,  two- 
story  building,  the  ground  floor  of  which  is  a 
sweat-shop  and  the  rooms  above  crowded  by  a  washer- 
woman and  a  large  family  of  children,  swarming 
around  her  tubs  and  stove.  Such  surroundings  would 
be  misery  to  me,  and  I  was  at  first  inclined  to  be 
somewhat  sentimental  over  their  hard  fate.  But  as 
I  have  watched  them  I  realise  that  in  truth  they  are 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    NATURE    59 

quite  satisfied  with  their  dwelling,  and  would  be  as 
unhappy  here  as  I  would  be  there.  I  was  reading 
my  own  sensitiveness  and  desire  for  privacy  into 
them,  who  had  none  of  it." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  I  do  not  think  I  can 
agree  with  you  in  such  a  view  as  that.  Nor  can  I 
view  nature  as  anything  but  the  great,  blundering, 
senseless  thing  it  is.  It  seems  to  me  a  far  sounder 
attitude,  and  also  a  worthier  one,  to  recognise  our 
ideals  as  ours,  dwelling  in  our  own  hearts.  Is  that 
not  enough  for  a  man?  Do  we  need  to  bolster  up 
our  faith  and  support  of  them  by  attributing  them 
also  to  nature  ?  Is  it  not  far  more  splendid  to  stand 
alone,  if  necessary,  '  thanking  whatever  gods  may  be 
for  my  unconquerable  soul '  ?  " 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  '  C'est  magnifique,  mais  ce 
nest  pas  la  guerre.'  It  is  a  foolish  theatrical  sort 
of  splendour.  If  a  man  finds  his  ideals  in  opposition 
to  nature,  opposed  to  the  whole  current  of  human  life 
and  universal  law,  it  is  time  for  him  to  get  a  new  set 
of  ideals.  Let  us  play  the  game." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  You,  then,  would 
only  fight  on  the  winning  side  ?  " 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  Yes  —  if  you  wish  to  put  it 
so  —  for  what  can  stand  against  God  ?  And  to  as- 
sume that  all  of  God's  universe  is  evil  because  you 
differ  from  it  is  absurd." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Is  not  the  difference  be- 


60  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

tween  you  really  one  of  dualism  versus  monism;  the 
Churchman  finding  all  things  work  together  for  good, 
and  the  Socialist  seeing  man  alone  as  a  saving  moral 
force  in  a  blind  universe  of  cruelty  and  waste  ? " 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  But  was  not  the 
attitude  of  all  religious  teachers  essentially  dualistic 
in  the  same  fashion  ?  Which  one  of  them  idealised 
human  life  as  you  have  done  to-night?  It  was  to 
save  men  from  the  misery  and  cruelty  of  life,  to 
enable  them  to  overcome  nature,  that  Christ  taught. 
And  what  was  the  meaning  of  Buddha's  message  of 
renunciation  and  the  way  of  liberation  ? " 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  Buddha !  Buddha  is  too 
mythical !  " 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  No  more  mythical 
than  Jesus." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  I  have  no  patience  with  this 
false  pessimistic  idealism.  A  lot  of  New  England 
transcendentalists  sat  in  their  studies,  or  their  gar- 
dens, and  hatched  ideals.  They  could  think  of  more 
reforms  in  ten  minutes  than  human  collective  effort 
could  bring  about  in  a  century,  and  they  condemned 
men  for  not  changing  everything  with  a  bang.  When 
later  they  did  what  they  ought  to  have  done  at  first, 
and  looked  out  upon  the  great  world  as  it  is,  they  set 
up  a  mighty  clamour  because  the  world  did  not  fit 
their  theories.  Why  should  it?  Thank  God,  this 
universe  is  bigger  and  better  than  your  brain  or 


CHRISTIANITY    AND    NATURE    61 

mine.  As  Ruskin  said :  '  Whenever  people  don't  look 
at  Nature,  they  always  think  they  can  improve  her/ 
"  Do  you  know  what  you  ought  to  do  ?  Stop  liv- 
ing on  your  own  thoughts,  stop  spinning  arguments 
around  your  soul  till  you  can  neither  see  nor  feel 
the  great  true  heart  of  Nature.  Get  out  of  your 
corner  and  do  something.  Do  something  for  your 
fellows.  Do  you  know  the  most  optimistic  place  in 
this  great  city?  Down  in  the  settlement  on  R — 
Street.  There  in  the  slums,  in  contact  with  life  and 
its  problems  —  side  by  side  with  the  hardship  and 
pain  and  suffering  —  there,  those  who  work  learn  to 
know  human  nature  and  life  as  it  is.  There  pessi- 
mists become  optimists." 


Ill 

EVOLUTION  AND  ETHICS  -  COLLECTIVE  LIFE 
AND  CONSCIOUSNESS 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN:  "In  the  discus- 
sion following  the  Clergyman's  talk  at  our 
last  meeting,  the  question  arose  as  to  the 
propriety  of  attributing  any  moral  element  to  nature. 
Man  finds  within  his  own  heart  certain  ethical  stand- 
ards and  moral  ideals.  Are  these  only  the  expression 
in  him  of  a  moral  law  acting  throughout  all  the  uni- 
verse? Or  does  their  presence  in  man  serve  to  dif- 
ferentiate him  from  the  rest  of  nature,  and  set  him, 
as  a  moral  being,  in  opposition  to  natural  law  and 
natural  forces,  to  play  a  lone  hand  for  his  own 
ideals  ? 

"  Each  of  these  views  found  its  advocates ;  as  did 
many  intermediate  shades  of  opinion.  Of  these 
latter,  one  of  the  most  interesting  and  suggestive  was 
put  forward  by  Professor  D — .  He  stated  that,  as 
a  zoologist,  he  was  forced  to  view  nature  as  cruel 
and  wasteful,  and  that  he  could  see  no  conformity  to 
moral  ideals  in  its  processes.  Yet,  while  thus  advo- 
cating the  essential  immorality  of  natural  conditions, 
he  asserted  that  our  moral  ideals  were  themselves  but 


EVOLUTION    AND    ETHICS        63 

the  evolutionary  derivatives  of  biological  principles. 
As  the  tenor  of  the  discussion  did  not  then  admit  of 
the  elaboration  of  this  latter  theory  or  the  attempt 
to  reconcile  the  two  statements  (which  I  confess  seem 
to  me  inconsistent),  I  have  asked  him  to  start  our  dis- 
cussion this  evening  by  giving  us  the  logical  develop- 
ment of  his  doctrine,  and  to  trace  for  us  the  origin 
and  evolution  of  our  ethical  concepts  from  the  bio- 
logical standpoint." 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  I  think  Professor  A —  is  put- 
ting a  rather  doubtful  construction  upon  one  part  of 
what  I  said,  and  that  the  antithesis  he  mentions  does 
not  really  exist  in  my  view.  It  will,  however,  prob- 
ably be  more  fruitful  not  to  attempt  a  retrospective 
explanation  of  what  I  did  or  did  not  say,  but  to 
speak  afresh  directly  to  the  subject  given  me.  This 
subject  may  be  stated  as  the  '  Natural  History  of 
Ethics ' ;  that  is,  the  nature  of  human  ideas  of  right 
and  wrong  as  clarified  by  the  evolutionary  develop- 
ment of  these  ideas. 

"  Really  there  are  two  subjects  or  subdivisions  of 
the  whole  problem.  The  first  is  the  historical  justi- 
fication of  human  standards.  The  second  is  the  re- 
lation of  '  natural '  or  (  biological '  ethics  to  the  other 
elements  that  enter  into  the  modern  complex  —  reli- 
gion. Here  I  would  have  to  trespass  upon  the  terri- 
tory of  the  anthropologists,  of  Professor  L — ,  and 
others." 


64  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  do  not  think  that  any 
of  us  need  fear  trespassing  upon  the  ground  of  others. 
Indeed,  our  points  of  view  are  so  different  that  tres- 
pass is  almost  impossible,  however  much  we  may  talk 
upon  the  same  theme.  So  I  trust  you  will  not  let 
this  restrict  your  presentation." 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  Thank  you,  but  I  may  find  I 
have  quite  enough  to  do  to  develop  my  first  heading. 

"  A  living  thing,  as  long  as  it  remains,  or  exists 
as  a  living  thing,  must  maintain  certain  definite 
relations  to  the  environment.  It  is  i  conditioned ' 
very  definitely  by  external  nature.  For  example, 
let  us  consider  the  Amoeba,  a  tiny  little  mass  of 
living  matter,  consisting  of  but  a  single  cell  and 
nearly  as  primitive  as  any  living  thing  can  be.  Yet 
it  must,  to  exist,  provide  for  the  introduction  into 
itself  of  (a)  matter,  for  the  repair  of  its  substance; 
and  (b)  energy,  with  the  matter,  to  be  converted  into 
its  '  vital '  energy.  That  is  to  say,  it  must,  if  it  is 
to  exist,  look  after  its  immediate  individual  welfare, 
be  egoistic.  This  is  the  first  and  great  command- 
ment of  Nature,  by  which  the  most  primitive  as  well 
as  the  highest  forms  of  life  are  conditioned :  '  pre- 
serve thyself/ 

"  A  second  commandment  of  Nature  is :  '  per- 
petuate thyself.'  Whatever  may  be  the  cause  of  re- 
production (and  Biology  offers  some  very  definite 
statements  on  this  subject),  the  conditions  are  such 


EVOLUTION    AND    ETHICS         65 

that  an  individual  of  a  species  must  make  more  like 
itself. 

"  Nature  does  not  tolerate  any  forms  that  ignore 
their  i  duty '  to  the  species  —  individualism  is  not 
permitted  to  reach  its  logical  extreme.  And  often 
the  obedience  to  Nature's  second  mandate  runs  di- 
rectly counter  to  individual  interests.  Nevertheless, 
there  are  now  no  species  that  place  individual  before 
racial  welfare.  For  if  such  there  were  at  any  time, 
these  have  died  as  species.  Nature  does  not  approve 
of  '  race-suicide.' 

"  Thus  at  the  very  beginnings  of  life,  as  in  its 
most  complex  forms,  we  see  these  two  laws  ruthlessly 
enforced  —  '  preserve  thyself  '  and  '  preserve  thy 
kind.'  The  violation  of  either  entails  the  blotting 
out  of  the  form  that  disobeys.  But  already  we  see 
evidence  of  the  wider  end  dominating  the  narrower, 
the  preservation  of  the  race  taking  precedence  over 
the  preservation  of  the  individual. 

"  When,  now,  we  pass  to  such  an  organism  as  the 
Hydra,  the  small  fresh-water  polyp,  a  relative  of 
the  jelly-fish  and  coral,  we  find,  not  one  cell,  but  a 
large  number  of  these  little  organic  units,  arranged 
in  two  layers ;  —  an  outer  layer,  lined  by  an  inner 
one.  Here  we  have  a  new  cell  environment  and  in 
consequence  a  new  type  of  '  conditioned '  existence. 
Each  cell  must  maintain  itself.  But  there  is  some- 
thing more  that  the  cells  must  do.  They  must  work 

5 


66  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

not  only  for  themselves  but  for  their  fellows,  and 
their  fellows  in  turn  must  work  for  them. 

"  The  outer  cells  provide  for  the  relating  of  the 
whole  mass  of  cells  to  the  environment.  In  return 
for  this  they  are  relieved  of  the  feeding  functions, 
as  they  receive  supplies  from  the  inner  layer,  that 
feeds  not  only  for  itself  but  also  for  the  outer  pro- 
tective layer.  Thus  we  have  a  primitive  community, 
composed,  so  to  speak,  of  two  groups  or  castes,  a  sol- 
dier class  and  an  agricultural  class,  while  of  course 
there  are  those  cell  units  that  have  as  their  special 
task  the  reproduction  or  perpetuation  of  the  whole 
colony. 

"  Thus  no  cell  is  entirely  sufficient  unto  itself.  It 
must,  it  is  true,  carry  on  the  same  essential  vital 
activities  as  a  solitary  amoeba.  But  now,  it  also  owes 
a  duty  to  the  other  members  of  its  colony,  who,  in 
turn,  are  specialised  for  other  tasks  and  owe  duties  to 
it.  Interdependence  of  differentiated  units  replaces 
the  independent  egoism  of  solitary  forms.  Altruism 
is  a  direct  result  of  association  and  differentiation. 

"  From  this  brief  sketch  two  things  should  be 
clear :  First,  how  an  individuality  of  an  higher  order 
is  established  by  the  union  and  specialisation  of  first 
order  individuals.  And,  second,  what  '  duties '  of 
mutual  support  and  co-operation  are  imposed  upon 
the  primary  units  by  such  social  relations.  Let  us 
now  extend  our  view  to  higher  groups,  and  consider 


EVOLUTION    AND    ETHICS         67 

such  communities  as  are  formed  by  wolves,  or  ants, 
bees,  wasps,  and  the  like. 

"  Here,  as  in  the  case  of  the  cells  in  the  polyp, 
we  see  the  same  mutual  dependence  or  interdepend- 
ence of  units,  the  same  subordination  of  the  indi- 
vidual to  the  common  good  in  which  all  must  share. 
A  pack  of  wolves  will  hunt  as  a  unit,  and  pull  down 
together  what  one  would  be  powerless  to  overcome. 
The  welfare  of  each  depends  upon  the  welfare  of  the 
whole.  No  matter  how  well  fed  and  strong  a  single 
wolf  may  be,  if  his  pack  is  feeble  and  diminished 
he  is  himself  in  danger.  It  pays  to  share  the  kill; 
and  that  pack  whose  members  put  aside  their  per- 
sonal quarrels  on  the  chase  will  survive  in  com- 
petition with  those  who  do  not.  To  care  for  one's 
fellow,  to  love  one's  neighbour  as  oneself,  is  a  com- 
mandment founded  upon  biological  efficiency.  It 
does  not  contradict,  but  both  supplements  and 
is  necessary  to,  the  other  commandment  of  self- 
preservation. 

"  Yet  there  are  times  when  these  two  command- 
ments conflict,  when  the  preservation  of  the  com- 
munity demands  the  sacrifice  of  the  individual.  Here 
the  lower  orders  of  nature  present  us  with  most 
striking  instances  of  altruism  and  self-sacrifice.  Con- 
sider, for  example,  the  life  of  the  royal  bee.  You 
all  know  how  the  life  of  the  hive  centres  around  its 
queen,  who  lays  all  the  eggs,  and  upon  whom  thus 


68  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

rests  the  perpetuation  of  the  entire  colony.  There 
cannot  be  two  queens  in  a  single  hive  —  if  there  are, 
civil  war  results  and  one  or  the  other  is  killed.  Yet 
(  princess  '  bees  must  be  raised,  both  to  guard  against 
the  hive  being  left  through  accident  without  a  queen, 
and  also  to  lead  the  swarms  and  to  furnish  queens  to 
the  new  hives.  Here  then  would  be  a  danger  of  in- 
ternal dissention  and  strife  were  it  not  that  the  prin- 
cess bees  provide  for  their  own  death.  The  royal 
larvae  construct  only  imperfect  cocoons,  leaving  open 
a  space  where  they  may  be  stung  to  death  if  un- 
needed.  In  a  way  it  is  suicide.  But  it  is  the  same 
kind  of  suicide  that  the  soldier  commits  in  storming 
a  battery,  going  himself  to  certain  death  that  others 
may  survive,  —  or  that  a  union  may  endure. 

"  Human  society  is  no  less  an  organism  than  is  a 
pack  of  wolves  or  a  hive  of  bees.  There  is  among 
men  to-day  the  same  specialisation  and  differentia- 
tion of  task  and  power  and  function  as  we  saw  among 
the  cells  of  the  simple  hydra.  Men  are  not  inde- 
pendent, but  interdependent;  and  the  laws  of  the 
biological  efficiency  of  organisms  apply  to  our  civil- 
isations, as  to  our  bodies.  We  have  seen  that  these 
laws  require  of  the  individual  two  things  —  the  dis- 
charge of  two  kinds  of  duties,  the  one  egoistic,  the 
other  altruistic ;  —  he  must  provide  for  his  own  wel- 
fare and  for  the  welfare  of  his  fellows.  And  if  these 
two  clash,  his  duty  to  himself  and  his  duty  to  the 


EVOLUTION    AND    ETHICS        69 

whole  of  which  he  is  a  part,  then  the  wider  end  takes 
precedence  over  the  narrower. 

"  This  is,  in  briefest  outline,  what  I  believe  to  be 
the  '  historical  justification  of  our  human  standards.' 
It  does  not  matter  at  all  whether  the  wolf  and  the 
bee  act  as  they  do  consciously  or  unconsciously; 
whether  generosity  and  self-sacrifice  with  them  be 
blind  and  compelled,  or  deliberate  and  willed;  the 
point  that  is  of  importance  is  this:  those  forms  of 
life  which  obey  these  laws  survive;  those  that  dis- 
obey die.  And  this  has  been  as  true  of  men  as  of 
animals.  The  savage  may  not  have  seen  why  he 
should  do  this  and  avoid  that,  but  the  fact  remains 
that  only  those  tribes  survived  who  consciously  or  un- 
consciously obeyed  these  mandates  of  Nature.  Our 
ethical  standards  are  what  they  are  because  of  this 
fact.  They  are  in  every  way  similar  to  all  other 
evolutionary  characteristics. 

"  From  this  view  it  will  be  seen  that  many  of  our 
human  terms  receive  very  precise  definition.  Right 
is  what  furthers  both  individual  interests  and  the 
interests  of  the  whole  group.  Wrong  is  the  re- 
verse. Good  is  what  is  useful.  Evil  is  that  which 
interferes  with  the  discharge  of  personal  or  social 
functions. 

"  Let  me  now  turn  for  a  moment  to  my  second 
heading  and  consider  the  relation  of  this  natural 
system  of  ethics  to  the  other  elements  that  enter  into 


70  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

the  religious  complex.  As  a  result  of  the  causes  I 
have  attempted  to  outline,  primitive  man  finds  him- 
self with  certain  feelings  of  compulsion  toward  this 
or  that  course,  —  often  toward  a  self-sacrifice  he 
cannot  explain  on  rational  and  immediate  grounds. 
He  is  living  under  tribal  order  and  law,  and  the 
compulsion  he  is  familiar  with  is  the  power  and 
authority  of  his  chief  —  enforced  with  club  and  spear. 
Therefore  it  is  natural  for  him  to  ascribe  this  inner 
instinct  to  some  external  authority,  —  the  will  of 
some  god  or  spirit  chief. 

"  I  think  that  we  can  even  see  how  he  comes  by  this 
latter  idea.  For  in  dreams  he  sees  his  friends  and 
enemies,  and  talks  and  acts  with  them.  Thus  he  is 
led  to  a  belief  in  another  world  than  the  outer  one 
around  him.  Moreover,  he  still  sees  in  dreams  those 
who  have  died,  and  thus  he  is  led  to  think  of  their 
continued  existence.  From  this  the  idea  of  disem- 
bodied spirits  and  of  immortality  is  formed.  Thence 
the  path  is  plain,  and  all  natural  forces,  as  well  as 
all  that  happens  to  the  man  himself,  are  viewed  as 
the  activity  of  some  one  or  other  of  these  spirit  chiefs 
and  heroes.  Gradually  greater  and  greater  power  is 
ascribed  to  them.  As  man  moulds  ships,  so  the  gods 
mould  mountains,  send  rain  and  drought  at  will,  and 
play  with  lightning  and  with  storm,  until  finally  the 
notion  of  an  omnipotent  God,  as  well  as  an  omni- 
scient one,  completes  the  series." 


EVOLUTION    AND    ETHICS        71 

THE  EDITOE  :  "  Is  not  this  a  pretty  cold  view  of 
life?" 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  It  does  not  matter  whether  it 
is  cold  or  not,  provided  it  is  true." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  Many  things  are  true,  yet  none 
contains  all  the  truth.  What  I  mean  to  ask  is  this: 
Suppose  we  grant  you  all  that  you  have  said,  what 
follows  ?  In  what  way  does  this  bear  upon  religion  ? 
Have  you  in  it  a  view  of  life  which  satisfies  you,  or 
which  helps  you  to  live  ? " 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  Yes,  I  have.  I  suppose  to 
some  it  would  seem  cold,  but  to  me  it  is  sufficient. 
If  I  find  the  basis  for  my  conduct  and  ethical  ideals 
in  the  very  laws  of  life,  what  is  surer  or  more  funda- 
mental ?  If  it  is  not  a  religious  view  in  the  usual 
sense  it  certainly  arouses  in  me  that  cosmic  emotion 
which  I  put  forward  as  the  basis  of  religion.  Indeed, 
that  is  just  what  I  tried  to  make  clear:  that  these 
were  the  facts  which  it  seemed  to  me  did  underlie 
first  ethics  and  then  religion." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Let  us  then  look  again 
at  certain  of  their  implications.  As  I  understood 
you,  you  began  by  considering  the  life  of  the  single 
cell,  which  acted  as  though  subject  to  but  two  desires : 
self-preservation  and  the  preservation  of  its  kind, 
which  last  you  spoke  of  as  being  in  one  form  or 
another  really  an  act  of  self-sacrifice.  From  this 
you  passed  to  a  consideration  of  more  complex  organ- 


72  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

isins,  such  as  the  jelly-fish.  Here  you  showed  that 
while  each  component  cell  carried  on  its  own  life,  it 
still  so  co-ordinated  itself  to  its  fellows  and  to  the 
whole  of  which  it  is  a  part  that  the  higher  single  life 
of  this  whole  became  possible.  This  co-ordination 
you  showed  to  be  at  once  egoistic  and  altruistic  in 
character,  and  you  put  it  forward  as  the  basis  of  our 
present  ethical  ideals,  tracing  its  action  through  the 
communities  of  insects  and  animals  to  primitive  and 
civilised  man. 

"  K~ow  I  would  like  to  ask  a  question.  Is  it  a 
legitimate  inference  that,  as  the  co-ordination  of  the 
cells  of  the  jelly-fish  enabled  each  to  live  with  the 
richer,  fuller  life  of  the  whole,  so  obedience  to  ethical 
standards  would  lead  man  to  a  higher,  wider  type  of 
consciousness  and  existence  than  that  of  his  present 
separate  personality?  Does  not  your  argument  sug- 
gest that  man  is  part  of  a  far  greater  whole;  that 
ethics  and  religion  co-ordinate  him  with  that  whole 
and  should  enable  him  to  broaden  and  deepen  his 
life  and  consciousness  until  it  is  one  with  that  higher 
consciousness  of  which  his  is  but  an  element  ? " 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  We  must  remember,  however, 
that  there  can  be  nothing  to  this  higher  complex  that 
is  not  in  the  elements  themselves." 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  Surely  you  do  not  mean  that. 
The  combinations  of  elements  may  be  totally  differ- 
ent from  any  one  of  the  constituent  parts." 


EVOLUTION    AND    ETHICS        73 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  Certainly.  All  I  said  was  that 
this  whole  was  compounded  from  the  elements. 
Whatever  the  whole  is  must  be  made  up  from  some- 
thing in  the  elements." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHEE  :  "  But  is  even  that 
certain  ?  May  not  the  properties  of  a  whole  be  quite 
distinct  from  the  properties  of  its  parts,  even  when 
taken  together  ? " 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Bolzano's  example  of  a 
drinking  glass  would  illustrate.  Viewed  as  a  whole 
we  perceive  it  holds  water.  Conceive  it  as  a  collec- 
tion of  broken  parts  and  no  such  inference  is  plain." 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  I  am  quite  willing  to  take 
your  illustration  as  my  own.  A  drinking  glass  can 
only  be  formed  from  elements  capable  of  being  so 
placed  together  that  there  are  no  gaps.  This  is  a  prop- 
erty which  must  be  present  in  the  element,  namely: 
that  they  fit  one  into  the  other;  though  you  will 
notice  that  this  is  a  meaningless  characteristic  when 
a  single  element  is  alone  considered.  Anything  that 
is  not  in  some  way  in  the  elements  themselves  can 
be  no  more  than  a  mere  abstraction." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  How  about  the  water 
itself?  Its  characteristic  property  of  wetness  is 
absent  from  both  the  hydrogen  and  oxygen  which 
form  it.  Or,  better  still,  consider  a  clock  and  the 
ability  to  tell  time.  Surely  time  is  not  a  mere  ab- 
straction. Yet  you  will  not  find  it  compounded  from 


74  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

the  brass  and  steel.  Again,  to  take  the  Mathema- 
tician's point,  are  we  not  all  familiar  with  the  differ- 
ence between  mass  psychology  and  that  of  the  indi- 
vidual ?  Consider  the  way  in  which  a  mob  is  moved 
to  frenzy  —  to  panic  or  to  rage,  or  any  emotional 
excitement.  Think  of  the  mob  ferocity;  the  lynch- 
ings,  the  burnings,  the  torturings,  which  are  nothing 
but  the  manifestations  of  this  mob  frenzy,  while  the 
individuals  comprising  it  may  be  of  themselves  quite 
mild  mannered  quiet  people.  These  are  not  mere 
abstractions." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  Is  it  not  probable  that  to  each  in- 
dividual amoeba  the  jelly-fish  is  a  mere  abstraction  ?  " 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  I  would  contend  that  aqueosity 
is  in  fact  a  property  already  present  in  the  hydrogen 
and  oxygen,  and  certainly  everything  that  is  done  in 
a  lynching  is  done  by  individuals.  In  that  sense  the 
mob  is  a  mere  abstraction.  The  coming  together  of 
many  men  and  their  reaction  one  upon  the  other 
bring  out  what  would  otherwise  not  have  been  re- 
vealed. But  it  was  there,  nevertheless.  Indeed,  I 
think  this  is  a  matter  of  considerable  importance, 
too  often  overlooked.  Whatever  is  present  in  the 
highest  organism  must  also  have  been  present,  and 
always  present,  in  element,  in  the  cells  which  compose 
it.  The  continuity  of  the  germ  plasm  makes  this 
certain." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  You  mean  ?  " 


EVOLUTION    AND    ETHICS        75 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  I  mean  i  ex  nihilo  niJiil  fit.' 
Moreover,  acquired  characteristics  are  not  trans- 
mitted. You  do  not  inherit  from  jour  father,  but 
from  that  common  line  of  life  which  made  him  what 
he  is  first,  and  then  you  what  you  are.  '  Natural 
selection '  and  other  such  evolutionary  factors  do  not 
create,  they  eliminate.  They  are  the  judges  of  what 
forms  shall  endure.  They  do  not  produce  those  forms. 
Therefore  we  are  forced  to  view  all  forms  as  present 
in  some  way  in  the  cells  from  which  they  spring." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Present  they  doubtless 
are,  but  still  unrealised  and  unmanif est,  —  present 
as  potentialities,  —  and  evolution  would  appear  to 
be  the  layer  by  layer  unfoldment  of  their  content. 
But  does  not  this  still  further  point  my  question? 
If  all  forms  of  life  are  pre-existent  as  potentialities 
in  the  single  cell,  then  man  must  also  be  the  image 
of  the  universe,  contain  within  himself  all  the  powers 
of  the  whole,  present  and  realisable  though  unreal- 
ised. And  you  have  shown  us  that  at  least  certain 
of  these  possibilities  can  be  manifested,  new  and 
higher  forms  of  life  realised,  by  such  a  co-ordination 
as  you  have  said  ethics  and  religion  in  fact  are.  In 
this  view,  then,  ethics  would  appear  as  something 
more  than  preservative.  It  would  be  itself  a  dyna- 
mic principle,  —  the  actual  machinery  of  growth. 
Do  we  not,  in  this,  return  very  close  to  the  Clergy- 
man's definition  of  religion  as  '  the  climbing  instinct/ 


76  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

whereby  the  consciousness  and  life  of  man  is  con- 
stantly being  widened  and  raised  ?  " 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  In  a  way  I  think  we  do.  But 
I  would  prefer  to  say  that  we  become  more  efficient, 
than  that  our  consciousness  is  raised.  I  do  not  know 
that  the  wolf  in  the  pack  has  a  different  or  higher 
type  of  consciousness  than  the  one  who  hunts  alone." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  But  why  talk  about  wolves 
and  bees?  Surely  we  know  more  of  ourselves  than 
we  do  of  amoebas  and  wolves.  And  is  it  not,  —  well, 
let  us  say  a  humorous  conceit  to  argue  seriously  that 
religion  is  or  is  not  creative  because  a  lone  wolf  acts 
about  as  his  brothers  in  a  pack  do  ?  Have  we  not 
difficulties  enough  when  we  begin  with  and  confine 
ourselves  to  man  ?  " 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  It  is  precisely  because  we  have 
so  many  difficulties  when  we  do  confine  ourselves  to 
man  that  it  becomes  necessary  for  us  to  take  a 
broader  view.  And  I  do  not  at  all  agree  with  you 
that  we  know  more  of  ourselves  than  of  lower  orders 
of  life.  There  is  nothing  more  misleading  than  in- 
trospection, as  current  religious  psychology  amply 
demonstrates." 

THE  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  I  agree  with  the  Clergyman. 
Personally  I  can  see  better  in  a  lighted  room  than  in 
the  dark.  My  own  mind  is  lit  for  me,  the  mind  of 
a  wolf  is  not." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Is  it  not  wise  to  look  in 


EVOLUTION    AND    ETHICS        77 

both  directions  —  both  inward  at  our  own  hearts  and 
minds,  and  outward  upon  the  workings  of  nature? 
These  two  views  seem  to  me  to  supplement  and  cor- 
rect each  other.  Thus  though  I  am  inclined  to  think 
our  zoologists  too  materialistic  in  their  conception 
of  life  and  of  heredity,  taking  too  little  account  of 
the  enormous  influence  of  mental  and  moral  environ- 
ment, which  is  in  fact  a  moral  heredity,  it  seems  to 
me  there  is  a  grandeur  and  a  universality  in  the 
view  Professor  D —  has  just  presented  which  I  would 
be  sorry  to  lose.  Does  it  not  both  enrich  and  clarify 
our  ordinary  thought  of  ethical  standards  to  see  them 
as  at  once  evolutionary  products  and  evolutionary 
forces?  To  view  them  as  the  deposit  in  the  con- 
sciousness of  long  ages  of  experience?  Think  thus 
of  Nature  sifting  the  hearts  of  her  children,  breeding 
brotherhood  in  us  as  we  breed  horses  for  speed  or 
wind.  We  may  not  see  why  we  should  act  thus  or 
so,  why  we  should  feel  this  right  and  that  wrong. 
Hereditary  tendencies  are  rarely  reasoned,  and  the 
deeper  any  principle  is  ingrained  in  our  character 
the  less  obvious  is  its  cause.  The  explanation  of  our 
ethical  standards  cannot  be  found  in  any  immediate 
benefit,  in  any  cheap  clap-trap  of  honesty  being  the 
best  policy.  They  would  never  have  been  produced 
by  the  conditions  of  a  given  moment,  nor  can  they 
find  their  sanction  in  the  present.  Their  causes  ex- 
tend back  into  the  past  to  the  origin  of  life  itself. 


78  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

Their  production  required  the  age  long  integration 
of  successive  lives,  their  justification  and  their  end 
must  ever  be  heyond  us.  They  are  the  past  acting 
in  us,  the  present  also  moulding  the  time  and  forms 
that  are  to  be.  They  are  the  will  of  nature,  the  evo- 
lutionary stream  itself,  the  breath  of  life.  This  is 
what  I  conceive  the  Zoologist's  presentation  to  mean, 
and  it  seems  to  me  to  contain  elements  we  cannot 
well  do  without.  But  after  all  it  is  only  half  the 
story,  and  I  would  wish  with  Mr.  F —  to  look  at 
these  things  directly  as  we  find  them  in  our  own 
hearts.  Unreasoned  they  may  there  be,  but  they  are 
not  fruitless  there.  And  we  do  not  need  to  speculate 
upon  their  fruit.  We  can  one  and  all  know  of  our 
own  experience  the  enrichment  that  results  from  al- 
truism and  unselfish  effort.  Indeed,  I  believe  we 
can  know  it  in  no  other  manner.  So  there  surely 
I  think  it  more  profitable  to  study  ourselves  than 
'  our  brothers  the  wolves.' ' 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  It  seems  to  me  the 
study  of  external  nature  simply  emphasises  the  fact 
that  we  can  only  find  ethics  and  religious  ideals  in 
our  own  hearts.  I  fail  entirely  to  see  this  moral 
element  in  nature  of  which  you  talk  so  much.  You 
seem  to  me  almost  deliberately  to  distort  the  facts. 
Because  two  thugs  can  kill  and  rob  more  safely  and 
lucratively  working  together  than  alone,  the  law  does 
not  on  that  account  sanctify  their  partnership.  Yet 


EVOLUTION    AND    ETHICS        79 

you  are  presenting  such  a  conspiracy  of  murder  as 
a  marvellous  example  of  natural  religion  among  the 
wolves.  As  for  the  heroic  suicide  of  the  princess 
bees,  as  well  look  upon  little  Prince  Arthur's  murder 
by  John  Lackland  as  suicide,  because  of  Arthur's 
supreme  self-sacrifice  in  being  young  and  helpless. 
Your  beehive  is  about  as  healthful  a  place  for  super- 
numerary royal  heirs  as  is  the  harem  of  the  Sultan 
of  Turkey;  and  for  a  like  reason.  But  I  do  not 
remember  to  have  heard  this  infant  mortality  lauded 
as  a  peculiarly  moral  and  uplifting  circumstance 
designed  to  inculcate  religious  truths  and  divine 
ideals  of  mercy  and  justice.  It  is  really  time  you 
biologists  began  to  do  some  clear  thinking.  Why 
can  you  not  be  content  to  look  at  life  directly,  and 
courageously  accept  man's  splendid  isolation  as  a 
moral  being?  Why  must  you  creep  and  crawl  and 
seek  a  false  support  in  nature  where  it  can  not  be 
found?  Is  it  not  far  more  splendid  to  follow  our 
ideals  because  they  are  ours,  than  thus  to  endeavour 
to  bolster  them  up  by  external  props  ?  " 

THE  BIOLOGIST  :  "  I  do  not  think  it  is  Professor 
D —  who  should  be  accused  of  hazy  thinking  because 
you  have  drawn  these  inferences  from  what  he  has 
said.  His  thesis  shows  that  we  are  what  we  are  as 
the  result  of  natural  processes  —  and  his  argument 
accounts  for  the  cruelty  and  selfishness  in  us  as  well 
as  for  the  altruism.  It  is  exactly  as  easy  to  deduce 


80  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

the  one  as  the  other  from  the  first  biological  prin- 
ciple of  self-preservation.  When  this  is  directed  to 
the  preservation  of  the  individual  we  have  selfish- 
ness, when  to  the  preservation  of  the  common-life 
stream,  of  which  the  individual  is  an  expression,  we 
have  altruism.  Neither  seems  to  me  the  hasis  of 
religion.  But  as  for  i  man's  splendid  isolation  as 
a  moral  being  '  I  have  not  an  idea  what  those  words 
mean.  Have  you  ?  " 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  It  seems  to  me  that  Pro- 
fessor D — 's  point  is  a  rather  subtile  one,  and  what 
he  has  said  to-night  should  in  justice  be  taken  in 
connection  with  the  views  expressed  at  our  last  meet- 
ing. He  is  not  arguing  for  nature's  morality,  but 
is  tracing  the  evolution  and  growth  of  man's  ethical 
sentiment  and  standards  from  biological  principles. 
We  are  in  danger  of  forgetting  again  that  man  is  not 
outside  but  in  the  universe  and  his  ideals  are  thus 
of  necessity  factors  and  powers  in  the  universe, 
which,  however  small  or  large,  must  be  taken  into 
account,  and  must  have  a  cause,  and  origin,  and  con- 
nection with  other  factors.  This  seems  to  me  the 
great  value  of  the  scientific  and  biological  view  of 
man  —  that  it  emphasises  his  oneness  with  other 
forms  of  life.  Yet  I  have  confessed  to  thinking  it 
only  half  the  picture,  and  to  viewing  the  action  of 
external  nature  more  as  corrective  than,  creative. 
However,  it  is  not  my  ideas  that  are  now  in  question, 


EVOLUTION    AND    ETHICS        81 

and  perhaps  Dr.  I —  will  tell  us  where  he  gets  his 
ideals  if  they  are  not  bred  in  him  by  life  itself." 
THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  From  my  own  soul." 
THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  But  where  did  your  soul  get 
them?" 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  From  God,  if  you 
like.  But  I  want  to  go  back  once  more  to  the  very 
basis  of  this  biological  view.  What  right  have  you 
to  speak  of  the  tendency  to  self-preservation  as  the 
fundamental  or  first  law  of  biology  ?  Is  that  not  an 
exploded  theory?  It  has  long  since  been  abandoned 
in  psychology  and  the  tendency  to,  or  law  of,  self- 
satisfaction  has  been  substituted  for  it.  Is  it  not 
time  that  biology  should  abandon  such  an  outworn 
postulate,  that  so  obviously  says  either  too  much  or 
too  little  according  to  the  place  in  the  scale  of  evolu- 
tion to  which  you  are  applying  it  ?  Animals,  for  ex- 
ample, are  not  thinking  of  preserving  life,  but  of 
satisfying  their  hunger,  thirst,  or  other  wants.  The 
moth  when  it  flies  to  the  flame  is  not  seeking  to  pre- 
serve its  life  or  to  lose  it,  but  solely  to  satisfy  its 
desires.  Again,  with  man,  we  find  many  things 
placed  before  the  desire  for  self-preservation  —  his 
love  of  the  ideal,  of  truth,  of  beauty,  and  the  lust 
for  it,  or  of  duty  and  the  austerities  of  religion  — 
all  these  have  been  chosen  by  man  deliberately  before 
the  continuance  of  his  personal  existence.  And  to 
one  such  deliberate  choice  we  have  a  hundred  unrea- 


82  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

soned  ones.  Really  it  seems  to  me  that  self-preserva- 
tion is  more  commonly  lost  sight  of  than  remembered, 
and  even  when  remembered  it  is  treated  as  of  little 
moment  compared  with  the  satisfaction  of  ourselves 
—  whatever  this  may  mean  to  the  self  and  the  time 
in  question." 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  Yes,  you  can  state  it  as  self- 
satisfaction,  if  you  so  desire  —  though  it  is  evident 
one  cannot  satisfy  oneself  when  one  has  ceased  to 
exist.  Or  we  can  give  it  an  even  more  general  and 
precise  description  as  the  necessity  of  reacting  in  the 
proper  manner  to  the  environment;  that  is,  the 
tendency  toward  equilibrium,  or  the  rectification 
of  difference  of  potential,  involving  organism  and 
environment." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  That,  of  course,  is 
more  subtile,  but  I  do  not  know  that  it  is  more  accu- 
rate. I  doubt  if  the  proper  reaction  toward  the 
environment  does  always  tend  to  rectify  difference  of 
potential.  It  may  tend  to  increase,  not  diminish  it, 
and  I  believe  this  is  particularly  the  case  where  one 
is  striving  to  follow  one's  own  ideals  without  all  this 
kow-towing  to  Nature.  Why  should  we  worship 
Nature?  Great,  big,  clumsy,  blundering  thing! 
Caught  red-handed  in  its  idiotic  incompetency ! 
Cruel!  Wasteful!  Remorseless!  We  should  curse 
Nature,  not  worship  it.  Or,  better  still,  we  should 
be  snobbish  to  Nature.  Use  it  and  despise  it." 


EVOLUTION    AND    ETHICS        83 

THE  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  It  seems  to  me  that  not 
enough  account  is  taken  of  reflection  and  the  part  it 
plays  in  this  subject.  It  is  as  reflective  beings  that 
we  are  religious  or  irreligious,  or  that  religion  touches 
us  at  all.  I  follow  the  zoologists  entirely  so  long  as 
they  are  dealing  with  the  lower  orders  of  life  — 
from  which  we  must  assume  the  power  of  reflection 
to  he  absent.  Here  nature  rules.  The  organism  it- 
self acts  and  reacts  according  to  completely  under- 
standable laws;  as  we  can  conceive  an  automaton 
would.  It  is  a  mechanical  scheme  of  life,  and  the 
problems  it  presents  are  of  the  same  order  as  those 
of  physics,  or  chemistry,  or  mathematics ;  and  the 
tentative  solutions  arrived  at  are  about  as  satisfac- 
tory in  the  one  science  as  in  the  others.  All  this  I 
follow. 

"  I  follow  also  the  mechanical  explanation  of  how 
these  simple  forms  combine  into  forms  more  complex. 
I  see  how  the  dynamic  principles,  underlying  this 
co-ordination,  correspond  in  some  fashion  to  certain 
sociological  and  ethical  principles  that  unite  us  to 
our  fellow-men.  But  none  of  this  seems  to  me  the 
basis  of  religion.  Nor  do  I  at  all  agree  with  the 
second  part  of  Professor  D — ?s  talk." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  You  mean  that  some- 
where in  the  evolutionary  scale  —  perhaps  with  man 
himself  —  a  new  faculty  or  power  comes  into  play, 
the  power  of  reflection?  And  that  religion  is  con- 


84  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

cerned  with  this,  not  with  that  mechanical,  auto- 
matic action  and  reaction  between  the  pure  animal 
and  his  environment  ?  " 

THE  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  That  is  exactly  my  mean- 
ing. With  the  power  of  reflection  comes  the  possi- 
bility of  error,  which  till  then  did  not  exist  (an  auto- 
maton cannot  be  mistaken)  ;  but  there  comes  also  the 
possibility  of  a  deeper  and  truer  discernment.  As 
reflective  beings  we  look  within  our  own  hearts  and 
see  ideals  and  desires.  We  look  out  upon  life  around 
us  and  we  see  both  richness  of  content  and  inex- 
orableness  of  law.  Seeking  satisfaction  we  realise 
the  universe  has  set  down  certain  prescriptions,  not 
of  our  making.  Joyously,  enthusiastically  we  accept 
them.  This  is  to  me  the  basis  of  the  religious 
attitude." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  And  if  we  do  not 
accept  them  ? " 

THE  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  Then  your  attitude  toward 
life  is  not  religious.  The  essence  of  religion  is  to 
play  the  game,  not  to  dispute  the  rules." 


IV 

POWER,  WORTH,  AND  REALITY 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN:  "It  will  be  re- 
membered that  at  our  last  meeting  the  Zo- 
ologist developed  the  theory  that  ethics  and 
religion  were,  in  fact,  founded  on  biological  prin- 
ciples, and  could  be  viewed  as  evolutionary  derivatives 
from  the  fundamental  laws  of  self-preservation  and 
the  perpetuation  of  the  species.  In  this  view,  Nature 
herself  —  whether  moral  or  immoral  —  is  seen  as 
inculcating  morals  and  religion  in  her  children,  by 
the  simple  expedient  of  letting  those  die  that  are 
without  them;  so  that  the  religious  principles  are 
the  principles  of  effectiveness  in  life  as  it  is;  and 
the  religious  attitude  the  attitude  of  acceptance  of 
universal  law.  To  this  thesis  Dr.  I — ,  our  Social 
Philosopher,  raised  two  objections:  first,  that  self- 
preservation  was  by  no  means  a  fundamental  law  or 
tendency,  and  second,  that  the  universe,  as  it  is,  is 
very  far  from  acceptable.  I  have,  therefore,  asked 
Dr.  I —  to  start  our  talk  this  evening  by  a  more 
detailed  exposition  of  his  views." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  I  am  sorry,  but  I 
did  not  understand  that  you  wished  me  to  speak  to 


86  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

any  given  point,  and  therefore  I  am  afraid  what  I 
had  intended  to  say  bears  very  indirectly  upon  the 
question  which  was  at  issue  in  our  last  meeting." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  did  not  mean  to  limit 
you  at  all,  and  would  much  rather  have  a  constructive 
exposition  of  your  own  opinions  than  a  criticism  of 
what  has  been  already  said.  You  remember  that  at 
our  first  meeting  you  remained  silent,  so  we  have  still 
to  hear  even  your  definition  of  religion." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  It  was  that  which  I 
had  meant  to  present  to-night,  so,  if  you  are  willing, 
I  would  ask  you  to  consider  what  we  may  call: 

"  A  Definition  of  Religion,  Based  upon  an  Exam- 
ination of  the  Various  Forms  of  Religious  Belief. 

"  We  may  construct  a  definition  of  a  term  such  as 
religion  in  two  ways :  first,  by  introspective  analysis 
of  the  experience  to  which  we  apply  the  term  in  our 
own  life ;  secondly,  by  observation  of  the  experiences 
and  practices  to  which  others  have  applied  the  term. 

"  Religion  means  to  me  something  very  simple  — 
it  means  the  emotional  attitude  that  results  from  a 
blending  of  the  two  feelings  of  dependence  upon  a 
higher  power  than  my  own,  and  respect  for  a  higher 
worth  than  my  own.  These  feelings  of  dependence 
and  reverence,  or  of  fear  and  admiration,  can  only  be 
blended  in  one  way,  namely,  by  being  directed  toward 
a  single  object  in  which  are  united  the  attributes  of 
superior  power  and  of  superior  worth.  I  can  think 


POWER,  WORTH,   AND   REALITY     87 

of  the  object  of  my  religious  attitude  as  a  personal 
God  or  as  something  very  different,  but  so  long  as 
the  object,  whatever  else  it  may  be,  is  an  identity  of 
a  deeper  reality  and  a  higher  or  more  perfect  ideal, 
it  inspires  the  religious  emotion. 

"  If  I  should  be  led  to  believe  that  the  universe, 
or  any  power  in  the  universe,  on  which  I  am  pri- 
marily dependent,  should  lack  this  superior  worth 
or  value,  my  attitude  toward  that  object  would  cease 
at  once  to  be  religious,  even  though  I  might  deem  it 
necessary  to  pray  or  sacrifice  to  it,  or  in  other  ways 
manifest  my  fear  and  sense  of  dependence.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  I  should  become  convinced  that  my 
ideal  of  perfection  was  nothing  more  than  an  ideal, 
and  was  nowhere  embodied  or  realised  in  the  uni- 
verse or  in  any  existent  power  on  which  I  depended, 
why  then  also  the  name  '  religion '  would  cease  to  be 
applicable  to  my  attitude  toward  that  ideal.  In 
short,  any  doubt  as  to  the  identity  of  power  and 
worth  of  the  real  and  the  ideal  is  a  doubt  of  the 
objective  truth  of  religion,  and  destructive  of  that 
subjective  religious  attitude  in  which  the  feelings  of 
reverence  and  dependence  are  always  blended. 

"  Turning  now  from  this  definition  of  religion,  a 
definition  based  wholly  upon  introspection,  let  us  ex- 
amine the  various  types  of  religion  that  actually  exist 
or  have  existed.  And  here  a  single  meaning  for  the 
term  seems  hard  to  find.  In  the  first  place,  we  can- 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 


88  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

not  say  that  religion  is  the  belief  in  one  God,  because 
that  would  bar  out  the  polytheistic  religions;  nor, 
secondly,  can  we  say  that  it  is  a  belief  in  a  personal 
God,  for  that  would  bar  out  the  great  systems  of 
pantheism,  which  have  at  least  a  de  facto  right  to  be 
called  religions;  nor,  thirdly,  may  we  even  define 
religion  as  a  belief  in  Gods,  one  or  many,  personal 
or  impersonal,  for  that  would  bar  out  Buddhism, 
which  is  properly  an  atheistic  religion,  and  in  which 
the  ideal  condition  of  being,  called  Nirvana,  is  the 
object  toward  which  the  religious  attitude  is  directed, 
thus  taking  the  place  of  the  God  or  Gods  of  the 
theistic  and  pantheistic  religions.  All  these  defini- 
tions seem,  indeed,  to  be  too  narrow;  but  if,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  define  religion  as  the  (  climbing  in- 
stinct,' as  the  i  sense  of  aspiration/  as  the  '  recogni- 
tion of  the  supernatural  or  the  unknowable/  as  the 
'  feeling  of  obligation/  as  '  cosmic  emotion/  or  as 
'  sheer  undifferentiated  and  hysterical  emotion  of  any 
sort/  we  make  the  definition  so  broad  as  to  lack  the 
specific  qualities  which  mark  it  off  from  the  merely 
ethical  or  a3sthetical  attitude.  And  yet,  if  we  return 
for  a  moment  to  the  five  types  of  religion  indicated 
above,  I  think  we  shall  see  that  there  is  one  and  only 
one  fundamental  characteristic  common  to  all,  which 
will,  therefore,  serve  us  as  the  meaning  of  the  term 
'  religion/ 

"  These  religions  were :   first,  Monotheism,  the  be- 


POWER,  WORTH,   AND   REALITY     89 

lief  in  one  personal  God;  second,  Polytheism,  the 
belief  in  several  personal  Gods;  third,  Pantheism, 
the  belief  in  an  impersonal  God;  fourth,  Fetichism, 
the  belief  in  many  impersonal  Gods  or  rather  forces ; 
and  fifthly,  Buddhism,  the  belief  in  a  supremely  real 
and  perfect  state  or  condition  of  being.  Now  all  the 
theistic  religions  attribute  to  the  being  or  beings 
called  God  not  only  superior  power,  but  superior 
virtue.  Even  the  fetich  is  not,  I  suppose,  a  mere 
power,  but  possesses  something  that  may  inspire  re- 
spect or  admiration  as  well  as  fear.  While  in  the 
case  of  Buddhism,  Nirvana,  although  not  an  entity 
or  God,  is  a  mode  or  condition  of  existence  that  pos- 
sesses the  distinctly  Godlike  duality  of  aspect  in 
being  at  once  more  real  and  more  perfect  than  what 
we  know  in  nature.  Is  it,  then,  too  much  to  say  that 
an  examination  of  religions  leads  us  to  the  same  con- 
ception as  that  which  resulted  from  introspection, 
namely,  the  conception  of  religion  as  a  blend  of  the 
feelings  of  reverence  and  dependence  directed  to  an 
object  in  which,  whatever  its  particular  nature  may 
be,  worth  and  power  are  blended?  We  may  note, 
parenthetically,  in  justification  of  this  view,  that 
there  are  two  distinct  types  of  the  ceremonial  ex- 
pressions of  the  religious  attitude  that  correspond 
perfectly  to  the  duality  of  that  attitude  and  of  its 
object,  that  is,  praise  and  prayer.  In  praise  we 
direct  our  attention  to  the  ideal  or  value  aspect  of 


90  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

the  divine,  while  in  prayer  the  feeling  of  depend- 
ence upon  a  superior  power  is  predominant. 

"  I  suppose  it  is  true  that  in  the  more  primitive 
religions,  as  typified  by  Fetichism  and  the  lower 
forms  of  ordinary  Polytheism,  the  element  of  respect 
is  overwhelmingly  dominated  by  the  sense  of  fear  and 
the  desire  of  gain.  Perhaps  it  may  be  held  that  in 
some  cases  the  objects  of  the  religious  attitude  are  in 
no  sense  superior,  but  even  inferior  in  moral  worth, 
to  the  men  who  worship  them,  and  that  consequently 
the  definition  that  I  have  proposed  would  be  inap- 
plicable. And  I  should  admit  that  many  features  of 
primitive  religion  would  better  deserve  the  name 
either  of  demon-worship  or  mere  supernaturalism, 
and  that  it  is  very  probable  that  religion  has  origin- 
ated from  a  sort  of  pseudo-science  or  magic,  in  which 
various  esoteric  rites  are  performed  with  a  view  to 
controlling  in  that  way  those  natural  forces  which 
men  have  not  yet  learned  to  understand  and  control 
by  ordinary  methods.  What  seems  to  me  certain, 
however,  is  the  fact  that  as  religion  develops  from 
this  pre-religious  stage  to  higher  and  higher  forms, 
there  is  a  steady  increase  in  the  ethical  element.  The 
Gods  become  with  increasing  distinctness  the  depos- 
itories of  tribal  or  racial  ideals.  And  by  this  I  do 
not  mean  merely  that  the  morality  ascribed  to  the 
Gods  becomes  more  perfect  as  their  human  wor- 
shippers become  more  perfect,  a  truth  which  every- 


POWER,  WORTH,   AND   REALITY     91 

body  will  admit,  but  that  the  moral  side  of  their 
nature  becomes  more  nearly  equal  in  importance  to 
their  physical  side;  the  advocates  of  religion  appeal 
less  and  less  to  man's  fear  of  supernatural  powers 
and  more  and  more  to  his  reverence  for  superhuman 
worth  and  perfection. 

"  It  is  customary  to  testify  to  this  view  by  point- 
ing to  the  Hebrew  religion  as  being  superior,  not 
only  to  the  other  Semitic  cults,  but  even  to  the  reli- 
gion of  the  Greeks,  in  that  Jehovah  was  recognised 
as  being  primarily  a  God  of  righteousness ;  and  this 
of  course  is  true,  though  it  is  only  fair  to  remember 
that  the  Greeks,  in  ascribing  to  their  Gods  a  lack  of 
enthusiasm  for  bourgeois  standards  of  morality,  by 
no  means  meant  to  imply  that  they  were  seriously 
lacking  in  sesthetical  or  even  in  ethical  attributes. 

"  Now  the  highest  point  to  which  a  religion  could 
develop  would  be,  I  suppose,  the  belief  in  one  in- 
finite and  omnipresent  Reality,  that  possessed  or  em- 
bodied at  the  same  time  the  ideal  of  infinite  perfec- 
tion. The  two  essential  aspects  of  deity,  that  is, 
power  and  worth,  would  then  be  of  quite  co-ordinate 
importance,  and  each  would  be  at  a  maximum.  And 
if  we  disregard  the  question  of  the  actual  truth  or 
falsity  of  such  a  belief,  I  suppose  that  most  of  us 
would  agree  that  it  is  only  this  monotheistic  type  of 
religion  that  we  should  care  for.  Nevertheless,  it  is 
worth  pointing  out  that  the  development  of  religion 


92  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

did  not  cease  when  it  attained  to  its  highest  perfec- 
tion (that  is,  the  recognition  of  the  equal  importance 
of  the  ethical  and  metaphysical  aspects  of  deity),  but 
passed  over  on  the  other  side,  so  that  we  now  have 
in  several  quarters,  the  curious  conception  of  God  as 
an  ideal  being,  lacking,  however,  all  objective  reality. 
"  This  view  of  God,  or  the  object  of  religious  emo- 
tion, as  not  of  necessity  real,  but  only  ideally  perfect, 
dates  from  Kant's  somewhat  ambiguous  system  of 
Practical  Reason.  In  the  early  nineteenth  century, 
the  French  philosopher,  Vacherot,  explicitly  states 
that  perfection  and  existence  are  incompatible,  and 
that  religion  must  content  itself  with  a  God  that  is 
unreal.  Professor  Santayana,  of  Harvard,  who  is  at 
present  the  chief  exponent  of  this  view,  goes  further 
and  maintains  that  it  is  not  only  a  necessity,  but  a 
positive  benefit  for  religion  to  divorce  itself  from 
ontology  altogether.  Just  as  our  appreciation  of  the 
character  of  Hamlet  is  hampered  by  an  irrelevant 
curiosity  as  to  whether  any  such  person  really  ex- 
isted, so,  Santayana  tells  us,  religion  is  vulgarised 
and  destroyed  by  demanding  that  its  ideals  be  em- 
bodied in  the  realm  of  existence.  This  sharp  sever- 
ance of  the  ideal  from  the  real,  and  the  consequent 
banishment  of  the  objects  of  reverence  from  the  world 
of  actualities,  seem  to  me  to  characterise  the  reli- 
gious attitude  of  a  steadily  growing  class  of  thought- 
ful men  and  women.  And  for  this  reason  I  believe 


POWER,   WORTH,   AND   REALITY    93 

Professor  Santayana's  writings  upon  religion  deserve 
a  more  critical  consideration  than  they  are  at  present 
generally  receiving. 

"  Note  that  this  final  stage  of  religion  is  in  exact 
logical  antithesis  to  its  first  stage.  In  the  first  stage 
the  gods  exist  as  powers,  but  they  are  lacking  in 
worth  —  religion  is  identified  with  propitiatory  rites 
or  magic.  In  the  last  stage  the  gods  possess  perfec- 
tion and  ideal  significance,  but  lack  existence.  Reli- 
gion is  identified  with  poetry.  And  between  the 
magic  from  which  religion  springs  and  the  poetry 
and  symbolism  in  which  it  has  here  culminated,  there 
is  room  for  all  the  stages  that  may  be  found  in  its 
development.  Both  of  these  extremes  are  equally  far 
from  the  ideal  craved  by  the  religious  consciousness. 
For  mere  reverence  for  ideals  without  an  accom- 
panying feeling  of  dependence  upon  a  power  not 
ourselves,  in  which  they  are  embodied,  is  as  truly 
irreligion  as  is  the  feeling  of  dependence  on  super- 
natural powers  which  lack  moral  worth.  But  these 
two  forms  of  irreligion  seem  to  me  to  mark  out  quite 
perfectly,  as  I  have  said,  the  opposite  limits  between 
which  all  religions  may  and  must  be  placed.  And  it 
is  because  they  illustrate  and  approximately  verify 
the  conception  of  religion  embodied  in  my  definition, 
as  well  as  for  the  intrinsic  significance  I  believe  them 
to  possess,  that  I  have  spoken  of  them  here." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :   "  As  I  understand  your 


94  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

thesis  you  begin  by  defining  religion  as  a  sense  of 
dependence  and  reverence  upon  that  which  has  power 
and  worth.  You  substantiate  this,  first  by  introspec- 
tion and  then  by  an  examination  of  known  religions. 
In  the  historical  sequence  of  these  latter  you  find  an 
evolution  through  three  broad  divisions.  In  the  first, 
exemplified  by  Fetichism,  the  aspect  of  power  is  pre- 
dominant and  the  aspect  of  worth  is  negligible.  In 
the  second,  exemplified  by  Monism,  the  two  aspects 
have  become  equal  in  the  concept  of  an  omnipotent 
power  of  infinite  worth.  In  the  third,  put  forward 
by  Santayana  and  certain  modern  idealists,  you  find 
the  aspect  of  worth  still  perfect,  but  the  aspect  of 
power  non-existent  —  as  the  object  of  reverence  has 
become  purely  an  ideal,  toward  which  you  cannot 
feel  a  sense  of  dependence.  The  result  of  this  evo- 
lution of  religion  is  that  you  feel  all  that  is  best  in 
you  to  be  severed  from  the  universe  at  large  and  your 
own  life  to  be  left  without  support  precisely  where 
you  most  desire  it. 

"  Now  in  this  the  crux  of  the  matter  is  the  denial 
of  reality  to  the  ideal. 

"  I  have  never  been  able  to  appreciate  the  philo- 
sophic anxiety  as  to  the  reality  of  a  given  object. 
Everything  that  is  is  real.  A  reflection  is  a  real  re- 
flection, a  lie  is  a  real  lie,  any  concept  a  real  concept. 
The  trouble  arises  when  we  try  to  classify  our  per- 
fectly real  concepts,  and  in  particular  when  we  try 


POWER,   WORTH,   AND   REALITY    95 

to  ascribe  physical  existence  to  that  whose  existence 
is  not  physical.  I  confess  it  seems  to  me  as  though 
much  thought  was  very  loose  in  this  matter,  and  as 
though  there  was  a  tendency  to  confuse  physical  ex- 
istence with  reality,  or  at  least  to  view  the  former  as 
a  necessary  attribute  of  the  latter,  while  in  fact  it  is 
no  such  thing.  I  do  not  question  the  reality  of  my 
keys  because  they  are  not  in  the  pocket  where  I  first 
searched  for  them.  Neither  should  I  question  the 
reality  of  any  object  because  I  find  it  in  the  realm 
of  the  heart  and  the  mind  rather  than  of  the  body. 
If  one  is  to  discuss  reality  at  all,  one  must  adopt 
some  other  criterion  than  the  department  of  life  in 
which  a  thing  is  found.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
most  useful  test  is  that  of  effectiveness  —  the  prag- 
matic test,  if  you  like :  what  does  this  object  effect  ? 
what  difference  does  it  make  ?  If  it  has  any  effect, 
or  makes  any  difference,  then  it  is  certainly  real. 

"  Judged  by  this,  or,  it  seems  to  me,  by  any  other 
test,  our  ideals  are  both  real  and  effective,  —  the  most 
dynamic  of  all  forces.  Ideals  are  not  static  pictures 
which  we  gaze  upon  unmoved;  but  powers  which 
possess  us,  compel  our  acts,  and  mould  our  lives. 
Honour,  Loyalty,  Patriotism,  these  are  ideals,  yet 
what  is  more  real,  what  more  dynamic,  more  compel- 
ling? What  stronger  incentive  have  we  than  our 
ideals  ?  What  is  there  for  which  men  lay  down  their 
lives  so  readily,  or  which  has  made  such  history? 


96  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

Surely  patriotism  is  more  effective  as  a  spur,  more 
sure  as  a  support,  than  dollars  or  whips  or  any  ma- 
terial agency  could  ever  be." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  Ideals  are  real  as 
ideals,  but  only  as  ideals.  We  crave  something  more 
than  this  and  would  see  them  embodied  in  the  ex- 
ternal universe.  A  man  thirsting  in  the  desert  would 
have  the  ideal  of  water,  which  would  certainly  be 
real  as  an  ideal,  and  which  would  be  effective  in 
shaping  his  action.  But  what  he  wants  is  water  — 
real  water  which  can  assuage  his  thirst." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  You  make  there  several 
points,  all  of  which  show  themselves  to  my  mind 
with  a  little  different  colouring.  I  hardly  think  we 
can  regard  our  ideals  as  made  by  ourselves,  but  rather 
as  chosen  by  ourselves  —  a  selection  from  powers 
already  in  life  and  in  the  universe,  which  we  choose 
to  light  and  guide  our  personal  existence,  and  by  so 
doing  we  augment  what  we  have  chosen.  It  would 
seem  to  me  that  the  inner  world,  of  ideals  and  aspira- 
tions and  religious  feeling,  existed  as  independently 
of  our  personalities  as  does  the  outer  physical  world 
—  the  difference  between  them  being  one  of  dimen- 
sionality, so  that  in  the  physical  world  a  thing  is 
either  in  or  without  our  bodies,  but  in  the  spiritual 
world  it  is  both  in  and  without  at  the  same  time. 
We  live  in  an  atmosphere  of  ideals  as  truly  as  in  an 
atmosphere  of  air.  Each  is  impalpable  and  invis- 


POWER,  WORTH,   AND   REALITY    97 

ible,  yet  each  supports  and  nourishes,  the  one  the 
inner  man  and  the  other  the  outer.  Only  in  the 
former  there  is  a  greater  selective  action  of  what  we 
shall  take  and  what  we  shall  reject,  and  we  grow  into 
the  likeness  of  what  we  take. 

"  You  have  contrasted  the  ideal  of  water  with  the 
reality  which  the  thirsty  man  craves.  In  this  case 
the  craving  is  for  physical  nourishment,  and  physical 
reality  is  demanded  of  that  which  would  fulfil  it. 
But  the  religious  craving  is  for  spiritual  nourish- 
ment, and  spiritual  reality  is  what  is  demanded  in 
its  object.  There  it  is  that  the  ideals  we  hold  to  can 
support  and  strengthen  us.  Strengthening  the  spirit 
they  strengthen  the  whole  man,  leading  him  through 
pain  and  privation  and  hardship,  under  which  he 
would  otherwise  sink.  This  is  not  some  idealistic 
theory,  but  a  fact  to  which  the  history  of  every  great 
struggle  bears  witness.  It  therefore  seems  to  me  but 
a  half  truth  to  view  ideals  as  a  craving,  and  not 
recognise  that  they  are  also  the  fulfilment  of  that 
craving. 

"  Again,  you  demand  the  embodiment  in  the  ex- 
ternal universe  of  the  object  of  religious  feeling.  In 
one  way  I  do  so  also,  in  that  I  believe  there  is  the 
hunger  in  every  man's  heart  to  embody  and  express 
the  ideal  he  loves,  or  the  Will  of  the  Father  to  whom 
he  turns ;  to  express  it  and  to  make  it,  through  him- 
self, a  living  power  in  the  physical  world  as  it  is  in 

7 


98  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

the  spiritual  world.  To  the  extent  to  which  they 
have  been  embodied  in  the  great  teachers  of  the 
race,  ideals  have  been  objective  physical  realities 
—  but  beyond  that  it  seems  to  me  unreasonable  to 
go.  Why  should  we  demand  of  an  ideal  the  same 
type  of  reality  and  existence  as  that  of  a  stone 
wall?" 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  It  may  be  unrea- 
sonable, but  I  am  quite  sure  it  is  the  fact  that  we 
crave  other  types  of  reality  in  the  object  of  religious 
feeling,  —  the  stone  wall  reality,  as  well  as  the 
reality  of  our  ideals.  And  when  either  of  these 
types  of  reality  is  absent  or  obscured,  then  our  reli- 
gious faith  suffers.  Take  Huxley  as  an  illustration, 
and  recall  what  he  said  as  to  the  loss  of  religion 
through  an  acquaintance  with  science,  which  shows 
us  nature  as  immoral.  Remember  his  statement  that 
there  could  be  no  such  thing  as  a  '  natural  religion ' 
and  that  there  was  nothing  in  nature  which  jibed 
with  our  own  ideals.  Huxley  lost  his  religion  as 
soon  as  he  felt  that  the  world  of  space  and  time 
showed  no  power  making  for  righteousness,  or  gave 
no  echo  back  of  his  own  ideals.  He  did  not,  there- 
fore, abandon  his  ideals.  On  the  contrary,  he  held  to 
them  the  more  firmly,  and  felt  it  the  more  incumbent 
upon  him  to  champion  them  with  all  his  strength. 
But  he  ceased  to  be  religious." 

THE   OXONIAN  :   "  Huxley  claimed   to  have  lost 


POWER,  WORTH,  AND   REALITY     99 

what  he  all  the  time  had  in  his  breast  pocket.  I 
say  advisedly  his  breast  pocket." 

THE  AUTHOR :  "I  think  the  objects  of  religion 
actually  possess  both  types  of  reality,  and  that  the 
deeper  we  look  into  life  the  more  convinced  we  are 
of  this.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  a  very  one-sided 
science  which  sees  nature  as  immoral,  —  one-sided, 
short-sighted,  and  illogical.  Indeed,  is  not  the  man 
holding  Santayana's  view  in  the  position  of  one 
moved  by  patriotism,  after  deciding  that  he  has  no 
country  ? " 

THE  LOGICIAN  :  "  It  is  just  that  sense  of  having 
a  country,  of  being  part  of  a  larger  whole,  that  seems 
to  me  the  essence  of  religion,  in  contradistinction  to 
morality." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  I  know  that  it  is  the  fashion  nowa- 
days for  you  philosophers  to  insist  upon  a  divorce 
between  ethics  and  religion,  and  you  are  all  up  in 
arms  at  once  when  the  two  are  considered  identical 
or  coterminous.  Yet  I  wish  you  would  explain  to 
me  how  you  ever  would  have  known  anything  of 
ethics  or  morals  except  through  religion.  There 
never  would  have  been  any  such  things.  The  human 
race  must  have  had  some  idea  of  God  before  ethics, 
which  are  the  laws  governing  one's  relations  to  God, 
and  the  way  one  must  act  to  reach  God,  could  ever 
have  been  established.  Once  in  existence  as  a  part  of 
the  world's  heritage  of  ideals,  it  seems  to  me  you 


100  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

seize  upon  them  and  coldly  -show  the  door  to  religion 
which  gave  them  birth." 

THE  LOGICIAN  :  "  I  understood  that  the  Zoologist 
took  up  that  point  at  your  last  meeting  and  endeav- 
oured to  show  that  religion  was  a  later  development 
than  ethics,  the  latter  being  directly  founded  in  bi- 
ology. But  is  it  not  also  true  that  we  find  all  sorts 
of  moral  ideas  associated  with  different  religions  ? 
And  that  this  diversity  is  so  wide  that  it  is  almost 
necessary  to  conclude  that  religion  has  nothing  to  do 
with  morality  ? " 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  think  the  Editor's  point 
is  not  that  religion  precedes  ethics,  but  that  the  two 
are,  in  reality,  always  tied  together ;  —  religion,  let 
us  say,  as  a  sense  of  a  relation  between  man  and 
what  is  beyond  him,  ethics  as  the  working  out,  or 
expression  of  that  relation  in  his  life  and  acts.  This 
in  no  way  contradicts  the  Zoologist's  view  of  ethics 
as  biological  efficiency,  if  we  think  of  the  end  of  the 
evolutionary  process  as  union  with  God.  But  it 
shows  us,  what  I  think  was  in  the  Editor's  mind, 
that  it  may  be  quite  misleading  to  divorce,  in  thought, 
what  in  experience  are  so  closely  united." 

THE  EDITOR:  "  That  was  exactly  my  point.  But 
I  did  not  mean  to  divert  the  conversation  and  would 
like  to  return. 

"  I  understood  you  to  say,  Dr.  I — ,  that  the  evolu- 
tion of  religion  has  followed  the  line  of  development 


POWER,  WORTH,   AND   REALITY     101 

you  so  clearly  described,  with  the  result  that  we  have 
reached  the  impasse  set  forth  by  Santayana.  Do  you 
mean  that  the  main  current  of  religious  evolution 
has,  in  your  judgment,  itself  reached  this  hopeless 
point,  or  do  you  think  Santayana  represents  merely 
an  offshoot,  —  an  eddy,  leading  to  some  stagnant 
backwater  ? " 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  I  would  like  to  be- 
lieve the  latter.  Upon  the  surface  of  things,  with 
such  knowledge  as  I  now  possess,  I  am  forced  to  give 
partial  assent  to  Santayana's  view,  in  that  I  do  not 
see  any  other  support  for  my  aspirations  than  that 
which  my  ideals  themselves  furnish.  But  I  am  al- 
ways hoping  to  come  to  some  deeper  insight;  that 
the  development  of  science,  or  the  later  evolution  of 
religious  thought,  will  bring  to  the  surface  some 
hitherto  unnoticed  facts ;  will  put  the  whole  external 
universe  in  some  new  and  more  moral  light;  and 
that  the  reality  and  power  our  hearts  crave  will  be 
restored  to  the  objects  of  our  worship." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  Dr.  I — ,  if  you  will  pardon  a  per- 
sonal question,  I  should  like  very  much  to  know 
whether  you  do  not  really  have  two  theories  about 
religion;  one,  a  very  interesting  hypothesis,  which 
you  put  forth  for  argumentative  purposes  when 
discussing  these  things  with  your  friends;  and 
another  very  different  theory,  which  is  the  work- 
ing hypothesis  upon  which  you  base  your  conduct 


102  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

and  your  life.  I  suspect  we  would  not  differ  very 
much  from  this  '  private  view/  which  seems  to 
shine  out  almost  unconsciously  from  much  that  you 
say." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHEE  :  "  No,  I  hardly  think 
I  am  guilty  of  that  charge;  though  probably  I  have 
a  vague  faith  that  things  are  better  than  they  appear 
on  the  surface  to  be." 

THE  AUTHOR:  "  It  seems  to  me  there  is  a  funda- 
mental fallacy  in  the  thought  that  religions  evolve. 
It  is  quite  true  that  we  see  in  the  world  the  three 
broad  divisions  of  religious  feeling  which  Dr.  I — 
has  described,  but  nowhere  do  we  see  the  evolution 
of  a  religion  from  a  lower  to  a  higher  form;  as,  for 
example,  we  can  trace  the  evolution  of  biological  or- 
ganisms. Is  it  not  now  generally  recognised  that  the 
doctrine  of  evolution  has  been  too  broadly  stated  and 
too  indiscriminately  applied  ?  Undoubtedly  there  are 
wide  fields  in  which  the  law  of  evolution  is  supreme, 
and  where  it  is  the  key  to  any  intelligent  view  of 
the  facts.  But  I  believe  there  are  other  fields  where 
there  is  no  such  gradual  unfoldment;  indeed,  many 
classes  of  phenomena  which  remain  forever  un- 
changed ;  which  are  to-day  as  they  have  always  been, 
and  always  will  be,  as  long  as  there  are  phenomena 
at  all.  True  religion  seems  to  me  to  belong  to  this 
latter  class." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  I  do  not  understand 


POWER,  WORTH,   AND   REALITY     103 

you.  The  religions  of  man  are  the  most  varied  phe- 
nomena he  presents." 

THE  AUTHOE  :  "  Yes,  but  I  was  speaking  of  true 
religion,  —  religion  as  a  fact  in  life,  as  the  relation 
of  man  to  the  Divine.  The  external  expressions  of 
this  in  the  formal  religious  systems  of  history  have 
indeed  been  very  diverse.  But  they  have  not  evolved 
one  into  the  other,  nor  do  I  see  any  evidences  of  that 
life  in  external  religions  which  would  cause  them  to 
evolve  from  lower  to  higher.  Rather  do  I  think  they 
have  all  been  different  expressions  of  the  same  spir- 
itual facts;  given  to  the  different  races  of  mankind 
by  those  whose  genius  enabled  them  to  see  those  facts. 
Consider  the  religions  of  China,  of  Egypt,  of  Chal- 
dea,  and  of  India.  Widely  different  as  are  their 
external  forms,  and  the  symbols  which  they  use,  it 
still  requires  but  a  very  little  knowledge  of  them  to 
see  the  underlying  unity  they  all  possess,  the  con- 
stant reference  back  to  the  same  spiritual  facts." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  This  may  be  quite 
true  of  the  world's  great  religions,  but  it  certainly 
is  not  true  when  we  consider  the  whole  range  of 
religious  expression  from  primitive  Fetichism  to  the 
present  day." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN :  "As  I  understand  the 
Author's  thought,  he  is  now  viewing  religion  as  '  that 
small  old  Path  that  leads  to  the  Eternal ' ;  itself 
endless  and  eternal,  stretching  from  the  infinite  past 


104  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

to  the  infinite  future,  always  present  and  always  the 
same.  As  always  there  have  been  those  upon  each 
stage  of  this  path,  there  has  always  been  in  the  world 
every  shade  of  religious  truth.  But  one  could  not 
say  that  the  expressions  of  these  evolved  one  into  the 
other." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  How  about  the  evo- 
lution of  the  Jewish  faith  ?  " 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  That  was  by  borrowing ;  first 
from  the  Egyptians,  then  from  the  Chaldeans." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  It  would  seem  to  me  that 
the  faith  of  any  given  people  might  well  be  con- 
sidered to  have  evolved,  —  just  as  one  would  move 
from  one  part  of  a  path  to  another.  Borrowing 
might  well  be  an  instrument  in  evolution." 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  Yes,  but  that  is  different.  Ex- 
ternal religions  themselves  do  not  grow  purer  and 
higher.  Rather  do  they  degenerate  from  their  initial 
revelation  with  the  lapse  of  time.  So  that  the  fur- 
ther back  toward  its  source  we  go  in  any  religion, 
the  purer  and  more  spiritual  does  it  become." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  What  better  example  is  there  of 
this  than  Christianity  ?  " 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  Yes,  it  is  an  admirable  illustra- 
tion. There  is  first  the  purely  spiritual  teaching  of 
Jesus  —  the  description  of  the  laws  of  spiritual  life 
recorded  from  direct  experience.  Then  there  is  the 
step  down  to  the  teaching  of  his  disciples  —  purest 


POWER,  WORTH,   AND   REALITY     105 

in  John  and  in  Paul,  who  were  in  a  sense  independ- 
ent witnesses,  with  first  hand  experience  of  their  own 
in  at  least  part  of  the  teaching.  From  there  on,  down 
through  the  Church  Fathers  to  the  present  day,  we 
have  a  gradual  decadence  both  in  understanding  and 
in  expression." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  But  now  there  is  again 
an  upward  swing  of  the  pendulum.  Did  we  not  agree 
that  we  were  nearer  now  to  an  understanding  of 
Christ's  teaching  than  ever  before  ?  " 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  Yes,  but  that  is  because  there  is 
to-day  a  new  revelation.  Only  it  is  manifesting  now 
all  over  the  world,  in  many  individuals  and  in  many 
ways,  rather  than  in  one  supreme  exponent.  In  sci- 
ence, in  literature,  in  art,  above  all,  in  Christianity 
itself,  this  new  spirit  breathes  —  this  new  divine  rev- 
elation, this  new  feeling  of  spiritual  law.  The  very 
fact  that  we  are  gathered  here  this  evening  is  evi- 
dence of  it;  and,  however  imperfectly  we  sense  or 
express  it,  our  own  hearts  and  minds  are  illumined 
by  this  new  light." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  That  is  a  matter  upon 
which  the  Clergyman  should  have  something  to  say. 
Mr.  F — ,  we  have  heard  nothing  from  you  all  the 
evening." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  Well,  I  hardly  know  just 
what  to  say.  As  I  listened  to  our  friend,  Dr.  I — , 
I  was  inclined  to  agree  with  each  point  as  he  made 


106  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

it,  because  each  was  so  beautifully  presented  and  was 
made  to  seem  so  logical  and  simple.  But  the  end 
was  not  pleasing,  was  it?  And  it  left  a  rather  bad 
taste  in  one's  mouth.  It  made  me  think  of  Heine's 
Hegelian  looking  out  of  the  window  into  the  night 
and  finding  no  other  thing  to  say  than  '  I  am  God.' 
That  seems,  —  well,  let  us  say,  —  inadequate,  does  it 
not,  and  not  very  appreciative  of  either  the  beauty  and 
majesty  of  existence,  or  of  that  sense  of  proportion 
science  claims  to  give  us  —  to  pick  out  just  one  point 
to  emphasise.  Is  not  the  difficulty  Dr.  I —  presents 
to  us  the  old  one  between  transcendence  and  imma- 
nence? I  think  that  this  disappears  as  soon  as  we 
take  a  psychological  rather  than  a  metaphysical  point 
of  view,  and  seek  for  ideals  in  facts." 

THE  OXONIAN  :  "  Hear !     Hear !  " 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER:  "You  know  I  have 
been  immensely  interested  in  these  discussions  be- 
cause it  is  the  first  time  in  my  experience  that  a 
thing,  which  was  perfectly  patent  and  obvious  to  my 
mind  is  objected  to  and  denied  by  others,  in  posses- 
sion of  the  same  facts  as  myself,  and  of  equally 
trained  perceptions.  It  is  such  a  plain  matter  of 
fact  that  we  do  not  find  what  we  reverence  in  ex- 
ternal life,  but  in  our  own  ideals.  It  is  equally  evi- 
dent that  we  crave  external  and  objective  power  in 
the  objects  of  our  religious  faith  —  but  that  this 
craving  is  not  satisfied.  I  should  like  to  believe  in 


POWER,  WORTH,   AND   REALITY     107 

such  a  power  in  the  universe,  but,  where  is  it  ?  How 
can  I  believe  in  its  objective  existence  ? " 

THE  CKEBGYMAN  :  "  Why,  how  can  you  help  be- 
lieving in  it  when  its  presence  is  thrust  at  you  in 
every  moment  of  life  ?  You  see  the  evidence  every- 
where and  in  everybody.  Human  life,  even  the  most 
degraded,  is  a  living  testimonial  to  it.  You  cannot 
look  into  the  heart  of  any  one,  even  those  you  think 
the  most  wicked  and  depraved,  without  seeing,  deep 
within,  strange  gleams  of  light  and  life  and  force, 
which  sparkle  like  the  facets  of  a  gem.  It  is  not, 
perhaps,  a  gem  of  the  most  perfect  water;  we  can 
recognise  its  flaws,  its  irregularities,  its  lack  of  pol- 
ish. But  still  it  is  a  jewel,  and  he  knows  little  of 
men's  hearts  who  does  not  see  it.  And  it  is  as  much 
a  force  as  it  is  a  light,  —  a  force  needing  only  to 
be  set  free,  —  already  struggling  for  expression,  and 
making  for  the  fulfilment  of  those  ideals  which  are 
its  light,  and  of  which  you  speak  so  much. 

"  Whence  come  these  ?  To  me  they  are  unmistak- 
able evidences  of  the  existence  of  God  as  a  spiritual, 
yet  objective  power.  The  very  fact  that  we  have 
ideals  is  evidence  of  God,  and  if  I  remember  rightly, 
you  yourself  so  implied  when  asked,  some  meetings 
since,  of  the  origin  of  your  soul's  standards. 

"  Human  life,  however,  seems  to  me  only  one  evi- 
dence among  many.  Everywhere  in  nature  the  same 
lesson  is  taught.  We  only  need  to  stop  reasoning 


108  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

about  it,  stop  all  our  metaphysical  hair-splitting  and 
look  at  life  and  nature  as  they  are.  We  will  indeed 
be  dull  if  we  cannot  then  see  their  beauty  and  their 
worth  as  well  as  their  power. 

"  Why  is  it  that  you  think  these  attributes  belong 
only  to  your  ideals  ?  Let  us  remember  that  the  uni- 
verse is  considerably  older  than  we  are;  that  before 
man's  mind  assumed  the  responsibility  of  running 
the  whole  universe  it  had  been  in  existence  for  some 
time,  and  that  a  good  deal  had  been  accomplished. 
This  should  really  be  considered,  and  for  my  own 
part,  I  know  that  it  fills  me  not  only  with  respect 
and  reverence,  but  with  a  deep  and  abiding  sense  of 
power. 

"  What  of  this  power  ?  What  is  it  that  made  life 
grow,  and  kept  the  stars  in  their  appointed  course? 
What  is  it  that  put  the  light  of  your  ideals  within 
your  heart  and  makes  them  fruitful  ?  Whence  comes 
their  power  over  you?  Whence  your  aspiration? 
Whence,  indeed,  your  craving  that  power  be  possessed 
by  worth  ?  Why  it  seems  to  me  the  whole  of  nature 
is  an  open  book,  in  whose  pages  we  may  find  endless 
proofs  of  what  you  seek  —  endless  evidence  of  the 
one  great  central  fact  of  God's  existence,  of  His 
power,  and  of  His  worth." 

THE  OXONIAN  :  "  The  great  importance  of  what 
Mr.  F —  has  just  said  is  that  it  changes  our  whole 
attitude  toward  religion  and  religious  controversy. 


POWER,   WORTH,   AND   REALITY    109 

We  no  longer  think  of  the  essentials  of  religion  as 
things  we  should  like  to  have,  but,  possibly,  for  rea- 
sons of  the  intellect,  have  no  right  to.  We  no  longer 
think  of  them  as  in  the  region  of  possible  doubt. 
Their  sphere  becomes  the  sphere  of  our  actual  ex- 
perience, which  we  cannot  doubt.  Professor  Huxley, 
for  instance,  imagined  that  he  had  lost  religion,  but 
he  had  it  all  the  while  in  the  very  facts  of  his 
nature. 

"  Our  ideals  are  facts.  Our  inspirations  are  facts. 
Take,  for  example,  a  college  student,  loafing  across  the 
campus,  hands  in  pockets,  a  cigarette  hanging  from 
nerveless  lips.  Yet  two  months  later  he  leads  a 
gallant  fight  and  meets  an  heroic  death  in  the  war  in 
Cuba.  Where  was  this  heroism?  Where,  in  the 
first  case,  the  ideals  and  moral  power  which  sup- 
ported him  in  the  second  ?  Or,  again,  take  a  fellow 
coming  up  the  stairs  to  such  a  meeting  as  this ;  and 
let  him  be  stopped  by  some  inspector  of  mental  lug- 
gage, some  custom-house  official  of  reason's  domain, 
who  examines  what  he  has  with  him.  How  easily 
we  would  all  have  been  passed  through !  '  Nothing 
to  declare.'  Dr.  I —  would  doubtless  have  been  made 
to  pay  duty  on  his  thesis,  but  which  of  the  rest  of 
us  had  with  him  then  the  ideas  he  has  since  ex- 
pressed? No  cross  section  of  the  mind  would  have 
shown  them.  In  this  I  do  not  mean  to  point  to  any 
subconscious  self;  but  only  to  the  bare  fact  of  in- 


no        TALKS  ON  RELIGION 

spiration,  the  fact  that  ideals  and  ideas  that  were 
not  in  us  now  are. 

"  We  find  these  things  within  us,  yet  they  do  not 
come  from  our  conscious  selves,  they  come  from  a 
source,  let  us  call  it  the  undersoul,  and  as  we 
reverence  our  ideals  we  must  reverence  the  source 
thereof. 

"As  I  remember  the  discussion  between  the  Mathe- 
matician and  our  Social  Philosopher  this  also  gives 
us  a  resolution  of  their  differences.  For  it  may  be 
said  that  every  ideal  is  not  only  an  existence,  but  has 
a  real  power  behind  it. 

"  There  is  a  power  that  makes  for  the  fulfilment 
of  the  ideal.  By  this  I  merely  mean  that  in  our- 
selves and  in  nature  there  are  many  tendencies  in 
that  direction,  alongside  of  others,  which,  no  doubt, 
are  in  a  contrary  direction.  Moral  and  religious  life 
consists  in  identifying  ourselves  with  the  one  sort 
and,  so  far  as  in  us  lies,  in  vanquishing  the  other. 
For  in  the  religious  sense  all  the  tendencies  that  make 
for  the  good  are  united  into  a  single  conception,  a 
single  principle  of  good. 

"  In  ourselves  these  tendencies  are  not  wholly  to 
be  identified  with  our  own  deliberate  will.  The  doc- 
trine of  the  Holy  Spirit  approves  itself  as  essentially 
true  in  experience.  There  is  a  power  not  ourselves 
within  ourselves,  what  St.  Paul  calls  '  the  power  that 
worketh  in  us.'  We  can  only  invite  its  presence, 


POWER,  WORTH,   AND   REALITY     111 

assume  toward  it  a  receptive  attitude,  welcome  it 
when  it  comes.  This  is  essentially  the  attitude  of 
prayer. 

"  All  this  may  be  quite  conformable  to  psychology 
and  physiology,  but  it  is  none  the  less  the  essential 
fact  upon  which  spiritual  religion  rests.  Whether 
the  power  that  makes  for  the  ideal,  what  we  may 
call  the  living  ideal,  is  literally  personal,  or  whether 
personality  is  only  a  symbol  for  it,  is  a  question  that 
need  not  disturb  the  spiritual  attitude  in  question., 
The  gist  of  the  matter  is  that,  both  in  the  world 
without  and  in  the  world  within,  there  is  undeniable 
power  making  for  good,  calling  on  us  to  unite  our- 
selves with  it,  to  be  its  instrument.  No  doubt  this 
leaves  weighty  problems  still  to  be  solved,  but  it 
puts  the  fundaments  of  religion  beyond  the  shadow 
of  doubt. 

"  This  view  makes  experience  supreme.  But, 
meanwhile,  it  admits  the  fitness  of  symbolism  as  a 
means  of  interpreting  for  the  spirit  the  facts  of  its 
life." 

THE  CLEEGYMAN  :  "  I  think  that  Mr.  M —  has  just 
expressed  the  attitude  toward  religion  and  the  ex- 
istence of  God  in  which  the  clergy  find  themselves. 
So  often  they  are  asked  the  reason  for  their  belief 
and  are  almost  puzzled  what  answer  to  make,  —  the 
fact  itself  is  so  obvious.  Indeed,  so  plain  a  matter 
of  experience  is  it  with  us  —  experience  of  spiritual 


112  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

law  —  that  one  could  almost  bring  against  our  atti- 
tude the  charge  that  it  had  ceased  to  be  religion  in 
that  it  required  no  faith.5' 

THE  OXONIAN  :  "  I  remember  a  conversation  some 
years  ago  with  Mr.  F — ,  in  which  the  question  arose 
whether  we  must  not  say  that  the  treasures  of  rea- 
son and  conscience  that  now  exist  must  have  come 
from  a  source  that  possessed  reason  and  conscience; 
whether  it  was  not  impossible  that  the  river  could 
rise  higher  than  its  source.  At  that  time  I  ques- 
tioned the  conclusion;  but  afterwards  reflected  that 
the  prime  fact  was  that  there  actually  was  in  the 
process  of  the  universe  the  tendency  that  has  wrought 
these  results  and  still  is  working  them,  a  true  foun- 
tain of  good.  That  fact  calls  for  our  co-operation  and 
devotion,  and  makes  all  differences  on  other  items 
secondary." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  most  heartily  agree  to 
the  view  Mr.  M —  has  so  illumined  for  us,  and  which 
seems  to  me  to  take  us  far  toward  a  solution  of  our 
difficulties.  Not  only  do  I  believe  there  is  a  power 
which  makes  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  ideal,  but  I 
believe  this  power  is  the  most  real  and  vital  thing 
in  life  —  is,  in  fact,  the  great  flow  of  existence,  the 
evolutionary  stream  itself,  or  the  power  behind  that 
stream,  as  the  attraction  of  the  earth  is  behind 
the  flow  of  water.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  our 
ideals  which  cause  our  growth,  and  as  we  grow 


POWER,  WORTH,   AND   REALITY     113 

our  ideals  grow  also  —  always  beyond  and  above 
us,  always  lighting  for  us  the  next  step  on  our 
path. 

"  Another  thought  that  comes  to  me  is  this :  Par- 
allel to  the  evolution  of  religion  which  Dr.  I — 
traced,  consider  the  evolution  of  man.  At  first  we 
find  him  little  better  than  the  animals,  living,  as 
they  do,  in  direct  contact  and  dependence  upon  ex- 
ternal nature.  His  struggles,  his  satisfactions,  his 
pains,  and  his  pleasures  alike  come  to  him  from 
the  physical  world.  His  thoughts,  his  emotions,  his 
hopes,  and  his  fears  alike  have  their  origin  there, 
and  are  circumscribed  thereby.  His  existence  is 
almost  completely  wrapped  up  in  external  physical 
nature,  and  there  it  is  that  he  feels  the  reality  of 
his  God.  This  is  the  period  of  Fetichism  or  of 
nature  worship. 

"  But  though  the  power  of  the  object  of  his  worship 
is  thus  felt  to  lie  in  the  physical  world  upon  which 
he  depends,  the  nature  of  his  God  transcends  the 
physical,  in  that  it  possesses  worth  which  is  not  phys- 
ical. This  worth  is  in  a  certain  sense  the  image  of 
man's  next  step,  the  prototype  of  those  virtues  toward 
which  his  heart  is  already  turning  and  which  he  is, 
in  time,  himself  to  embody. 

"  Consider  now  the  present  stage  of  our  evolu- 
tion. No  longer  are  we  in  close  and  direct  contact 
with  the  powers  of  external  nature.  Truly  we  de- 

8 


114  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

pend  upon  them,  but  our  dependence  is  remote  and 
seldom  in  our  consciousness.  The  centre  and  cir- 
cumference of  our  lives  have  alike  passed  inwards 
from  the  external  physical  world  to  the  inner  mental 
and  emotional  world.  It  is  there  that  we  now  de- 
pend for  our  existence.  It  is  there  that  we  labor, 
there  that  we  enjoy  and  suffer.  Indeed,  the  outer 
world  is  only  of  value  to  us  as  it  affects  this  inner 
world;  as  it  reacts  upon  our  inner  life  which  now 
is  the  seat  of  reality.  Just  as  when  man  centres 
his  life  in  the  physical  world  he  finds  there  the 
reality  of  his  worship;  so  we,  whose  lives  are 
centred  in  the  mental  world,  find  in  that  the  keen- 
est sense  of  the  reality  of  that  which  we  worship. 
In  each  case  we  ascribe  the  power  of  our  God  to 
that  realm  of  life  upon  which  we  most  closely 
depend.  And  in  each  case  the  worth  of  our  wor- 
ship is  something  which  transcends  our  world  and 
leads  us  on,  as  our  ideals  now  lead  us  beyond 
the  mental  to  the  spiritual  world,  unlocking  for 
us  ever  higher  realms  of  life,  ever  deepening 
realities." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  Almost  you  con- 
vince me.  And  yet —  Why,  man,  think  of  the 
cruelty  of  life !  Think  of  the  misery  and  pain  and 
death!  Think  of  child  labour  and  the  death  rate 
among  the  children,  and  think  of  those  child  slaves 
in  the  Southern  mills." 


POWER,   WORTH,   AND   REALITY     115 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  There  are  two  sides  to  that  child 
labour  question.  We  hear  much  of  the  evils  of 
child  labour,  but  I  am  not  sure  that  the  results  of 
child  idleness  are  not  worse.  It  is  certainly  idleness 
and  not  labour  that  fills  our  children's  courts  and 
houses  of  correction  and  produces  our  criminals.  I 
was  talking  recently  with  a  man,  a  clergyman,  by  the 
way,  who  had  lived  long  in  a  Southern  mill  town  and 
studied  the  question  at  first  hand.  He  thought  we 
in  the  North  had  a  very  distorted  idea  of  the  actual 
conditions.  For  the  most  part  the  work  of  the  chil- 
dren is  very  light,  requiring  their  presence  only  at 
intervals;  between  which  times  they  are  usually 
playing  in  the  yard,  and  there  is  one  man  whose 
special  duty  it  is  to  call  them  in  when  they  are 
needed. 

"  But  what  I  think  must  be  particularly  considered 
is  the  previous  condition  of  these  children.  From 
year's  end  to  year's  end  the  greater  number  of  them 
had  never  had  enough  to  eat.  They  belonged  to  poor 
families  living  back  in  the  mountains,  with  practi- 
cally no  means  of  support.  The  coming  of  the  mills 
was  a  God-send  to  them.  Whole  families  packed  up 
and  moved  into  the  mill  town,  where  they  could  now, 
for  the  first  time,  get  employment,  and  where  they 
could  get  food.  The  father  and  mother  would  both 
work,  and  the  older  children  help.  Perhaps  it  is 
hard  on  these  children,  but  it  is  no  harder,  in  the 


116  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

long  run,  than  was  their  previous  life.  And  by 
their  work  the  family  could  save  a  little  money  — 
often  enough  to  send  the  younger  children  to  school 
and,  in  more  than  one  case  that  I  heard  of,  to 
college. 

"  I  think  that  even  in  such  cases  as  this,  if  we 
are  fair,  and  look  at  things  broadly  as  they  really  are, 
we  will  see  the  action  of  bettering  forces,  a  gradual 
but  sure  improvement." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  But  you  certainly 
cannot  call  the  high  death  rate  among  these  children 
a  good  thing.  I  do  not  see  that  the  statistics  jibe 
with  your  theory.  It  seems  to  me  little  short  of 
murder." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  I  asked  my  friend  about  that. 
He  told  me  that  he  could  not  recall  one  fatal  accident 
to  any  child." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER:  "Yet  the  statistics 
show  the  death  rate  far  higher  among  these  children 
than  the  normal,  far  higher  than  among  the  adult 
workers.  Surely  even  your  optimism  cannot  defend 
such  a  condition  as  that,  or  see  in  it  anything  but 
the  cruel  evil  it  is." 

THE  BANKER  :  "  I  should  imagine,  from  what  we 
have  been  told  of  the  antecedents  of  these  children, 
that  the  death  rate  among  them  would  naturally  be 
higher  than  among  those  who  were  better  nourished. 
But  are  we  warranted  in  this  constant  assumption 


POWER,   WORTH,   AND   REALITY     117 

that  death  is  cruel  ?  Let  us  for  a  moment  postulate 
immortality.  Is  there  then  any  necessary  evil  in 
death  ?  We  must  know  more  of  what  lies  either  side 
of  death  before  we  can  speak  of  a  high  death  rate  as 
an  evil  thing." 


V 

MYSTICISM  AND  FAITH 

fnr^HE    MATHEMATICIAN:  "I  am  sorry  to 
say  that  neither  the  Historian  nor  the  Social 
Philosopher  can  be  with  us  to-night,  and,  in- 
deed, I  have  small  hope  of  seeing  our  Biologist.    For, 
though  he  promised  to  come  if  he  could,  I  know  he 
is  presenting  a  paper  before  the  Society  for  Experi- 
mental Biology,  and  I  fear  there  is  little  chance  of 
his  being  let  off  in  time  to  join  us.     Therefore,  we 
had  best  wait  no  longer. 

"  You  remember  that,  at  our  last  meeting,  the 
Social  Philosopher  defined  religion  as  a  commingled 
sense  of  dependence  and  reverence  directed  toward 
that  which  had  both  power  and  worth.  This  he  sup- 
ported by  an  appeal  to  introspection,  as  well  as  by 
an  examination  of  historic  systems.  It  appeared 
that  the  evolution  of  religion  had  been  away  from 
the  sense  of  power,  while  the  sense  of  worth  had 
augmented,  so  that  in  certain  quarters  to-day  reli- 
gion was  identified  with  poetry  and  considered  purely 
a  question  of  ideals.  This  led  to  a  good  deal  of  dis- 
cussion of  the  reality  and  power  of  the  ideal  —  its 
independence  of  us  and  its  power  over  us.  The 


MYSTICISM    AND    FAITH        119 

opinion  was  expressed  that  man  found  the  power  of 
his  religion  in  that  department  of  life  where  his 
own  existence  was  centred.  As  in  his  evolution  the 
centre  of  his  life  had  passed  from  the  physical  to 
the  mental  and  emotional  worlds,  so  had  his  religion 
become  more  subjective,  more  a  matter  of  the  inner 
life  than  the  outer;  but  it  was  none  the  less  real, 
none  the  less  powerful,  and  none  the  less  a  universal 
fact  in  the  latter  case  than  in  the  former. 

"  In  the  course  of  this  discussion  the  Oxonian  ably 
defended  the  existence  of  inspiration  as  a  fact  of 
experience,  and  of  a  power,  not  ourselves,  which 
makes  for  righteousness. 

"  I  have  asked  him  to  open  our  discussion  for  us 
this  evening." 

THE  OXONIAN  :  "  The  Mathematician  truly  asked 
me  to  give  you  a  lead,  but  he  did  not  tell  me  upon 
what  to  speak.  As  I  have  been  privileged  to  attend 
but  one  other  meeting  I  find  myself  in  something  of 
a  quandary.  There  are  four  subjects,  into  any  one 
of  which  I  might  plunge;  which  I  shall  choose  I 
leave  to  you.  For  you  can  judge  which  fits  best  with 
your  previous  discussions.  These  are:  first,  The 
Nature  of  the  Religious  Sentiment;  second,  The 
Problem  of  Evil,  to  which  the  Social  Philosopher  re- 
ferred last  time  —  that  is,  the  fact  so  baffling  to 
any  one  who  would  worship  the  supreme  power  in 
the  universe  that  to  it  is  due  pain  and  sin  and  hid- 


120  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

eousness  quite  as  truly  as  good.  The  third  subject  is 
Mysticism ;  and  the  fourth  is  The  Place  of  the 
Church  in  this  Age." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  They  all  four  fit  in  ad- 
mirably. The  central  purpose  of  all  these  meetings 
is  to  arrive  at  some  clearer  idea  of  the  nature  of  the 
religious  sentiment.  The  apparent  evil  in  the  world 
is  a  difficulty  which  has  constantly  been  voiced,  no- 
tably by  the  Social  Philosopher,  and,  though  mysti- 
cism itself  has  received  no  direct  discussion,  the 
mystic  point  of  view  is  one  that  has  very  frequently 
been  adopted,  and  I  know  appeals  strongly  to  more 
than  one  of  us.  Your  fourth  subject,  the  function  of 
the  Church  in  the  present  age,  has  also  been  touched 
upon.  Indeed,  it  was  a  discussion  of  this  which  led 
to  the  wider  inquiries  we  have  since  pursued.  It  is, 
therefore,  plain  that  you  cannot  choose  one,  and  re- 
ject the  other  three;  for  whichever  you  selected  you 
would  leave  unsaid  the  greater  part  of  what  we  wish 
to  hear.  Obviously,  you  must  speak  to  us  upon  all 
four." 

THE  OXONIAN  :  "  Any  one  of  them  is  an  ambitious 
undertaking  for  a  single  evening." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  The  night  is  young." 

THE  OXONIAN:  "Well,  as  you  will.  There  is  a 
certain  unity  among  the  four,  and  it  may  be  of  in- 
terest to  present  them  in  sequence. 

"  If  I  am  asked  what  is  the  nature  of  the  religious 


MYSTICISM    AND    FAITH 

sentiment,  my  answer  would  turn  on  the  words  Spirit 
and  Faith.  Faith  is  a  need  of  the  spirit.  '  The 
Spirit '  and  (  Spiritual '  are  terms  constantly  used, 
but  we  should,  most  of  us,  be  puzzled  to  say  exactly 
what  they  mean.  I  shall  not  attempt  to  give  a  com- 
plete definition,  but  should  like  to  begin  with  those 
facts  of  human  nature  which  form  the  basis  or  rudi- 
ments of  what  we  call  Spirit. 

"  Unlike  the  brutes  a  man  thinks  and  feels  when 
he  does  not  have  to.  To  use  the  language  we  have  all 
learned  by  heart,  we  live  by  responding  to  our  en- 
vironment. The  brute  responds  to  the  particular  ex- 
igency of  the  environment,  its  particular  action  upon 
him,  and  then  he  is,  as  it  were,  released  until  the 
next  call  comes.  The  dog  is  hungry  and  searches  for 
food.  But  when  he  has  eaten  he  curls  himself  up 
and  sleeps,  forgetful  of  his  past  hunger,  of  all  his 
past  activity.  The  brute's  actions  are  complete  in 
themselves.  There  is  no  aftermath.  Of  course  there 
are  instincts  that  act  persistently,  making  birds  mi- 
grate, and  the  like,  but  at  least  we  may  say  that  the 
animal's  emotional  nature  responds  to  particular  calls 
and  then  relapses  into  a  neutral  and  colourless  state. 

"  It  is  man  in  whose  nature  chords  of  feeling  are 
struck  that  continue  to  sound  when  the  environment 
speaks  to  him  no  longer.  So  subtle  and  enduring 
are  our  moods  that  they  continue  beyond  our  memory 
of  their  origin.  Indeed,  we  sometimes  stop  and  ask 


122  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

ourselves,  Why  is  it  that  I  am  depressed  ?  What  is 
the  thought  or  sight  that  cast  me  down  or  that 
elated  me?  Not  infrequently  when  we  have  found 
it  it  is  quite  trivial,  out  of  all  proportion  to  the 
effect  which  it  produced,  so  insignificant  that  it  is 
set  aside  as  soon  as  recognised.  Yet  the  mood 
has  endured.  Human  nature  has  an  extraordinary 
susceptibility  to  these  prolonged  reverberations  of 
feeling. 

"  "Now  this  is  what  creates  the  need  for  religion. 
A  man  can  see,  or  the  hemispheres  of  his  brain  en- 
able him  to  imagine,  wide  stretches  of  environment, 
destined,  it  may  be,  to  affect  him  in  the  future,  filled 
to  his  imagination  with  vague  portent,  but  to  which 
he  does  not  know  how  to  make  present  response. 
This  leaves  him  in  some  degree  of  that  disturbing 
uncertainty  that  seizes  us  when  we  feel  environing 
forces  but  do  not  know  what  i  reaction ?  to  make. 
The  cause  of  his  depression  was  trivial,  yet  he  is  still 
cast  down  —  where  can  he  look  for  comfort?  The 
barren  spaces  of  existence  absorb  his  imaginings  and 
make  his  loneliness  known  to  him.  Where  can  he 
find  companionship  ?  The  power  of  nature,  its  vast- 
ness  and  impersonality,  fill  him  with  terror;  where 
can  he  turn  for  support,  where  win  faith  and  trust 
with  which  to  stand  against  these  ? 

"  The  representative  faculty  must  solve  the  prob- 
lem it  has  created.  It  must  enable  him  to  represent 


MYSTICISM    AND    FAITH        123 

the  fateful  potentialities,  of  which  for  the  first  time 
he  has  become  aware,  in  such  form  that  he  can  at 
once  react  appropriately  to  them  and  not  be  left 
wholly  at  a  loss.  If  we  never  had  time  to  muse, 
religion  would  not  arise.  If  we  never  had  time  to 
look  about  us,  to  grow  conscious  of  our  weakness  in 
the  presence  of  complex  circumstance  and  doubtful 
futurity,  we  should  never  want  to  know  the  character, 
the  spirit  of  those  forces  and  futures,  that  we  might 
propitiate,  or  trust,  or  rejoice  in  them.  In  other 
words,  the  imagination  must  condense  or  epitomise 
in  one  object  all  the  thousand  and  one  facts  of  life 
and  the  world;  it  must  conceive  a  government  of 
these  facts,  so  that  the  spirit  can  thereafter  treat 
with  the  government  and  so  save  itself  from  the  deso- 
late perplexity  of  having  to  deal  in  imagination  and 
feeling  with  the  myriad  facts  themselves.  It  must 
synthesise  the  larger  environment  which  looms  so 
portentously  in  man's  consciousness,  yet  of  which  the 
brute  seems  unaware. 

"  When  we  have  such  a  unified  object  of  the  reli- 
gious sense,  we  have  something  to  which  we  can,  as 
it  were,  i  react.'  Now  if  we  discover  that  in  the 
nature  of  things  there  is  such  a  central  fact  which 
the  spirit  may  confront,  then  this  is  a  world  in  which 
the  religious  need  is  met.  To  this  we  can  take  our 
joy  and  our  sorrow.  In  this  we  can  place  our  faith, 
and  find  in  this  synthesising  representative  power 


124  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

the  basis  for  a  trust  which  will  still  the  reverbera- 
tions of  our  fears. 

"  This  brings  me  to  my  second  topic.  The  trouble 
is  that  the  government  of  the  world  seems  not  wholly 
beneficent.  Evil  flows  from  it  as  well  as  good.  The 
thought  that  good  and  evil  are  indifferent  to  this 
central  power  is  intolerable  to  the  religious  sense. 
Xor  will  our  need  admit  a  power  greater  than  that 
in  which  we  trust,  capable  of  overruling  its  decrees, 
thwarting  its  will.  Our  faith  must  be  justified,  our 
trust  complete. 

"  I  need  not  enter  here  upon  a  prolonged  discus- 
sion of  the  ancient  problem  of  evil.  It  is  enough  to 
say  that  even  from  a  naturalistic  point  of  view,  mak- 
ing no  doubtful  assumptions  in  metaphysics  or  in 
history,  we  can  answer  the  problem  so  far  as  the 
religious  sense  presses  for  an  answer.  Good  flows 
from  the  nature  of  things,  and  evil  flows  from  the 
nature  of  things;  but  what  it  concerns  us  to  note  is 
that  superiority  flows  from  the  nature  of  things ;  — 
the  fact  that  the  good  is  better  than  the  evil.  The 
nature  of  things  fixes  both  human  need  and  the  condi- 
tions of  its  fulfilment,  and  so  decrees  the  moral  law 
and  paints  the  ideal.  Our  natures  flow  from  the 
nature  of  things.  So  Goethe  was  right  in  saying  that 
virtue  proceeded  from  the  heart  of  nature.  And  so 
it  is  fitting  that  in  the  tragedy  of  ^Eschylus  that 
which  is  known  as  Earth  has  also  the  name  of 


MYSTICISM    AND    FAITH        125 

Righteousness.  The  ideal  itself  is  a  product  of  the 
universe,  as  is  the  heart  of  man  and  all  that  yearns 
and  aspires  therein.  To  follow  nature  is  to  assert 
our  own. 

"  Therefore  we  can  rest  in  this :  that  though  both 
good  and  evil  are  present  in  the  universe,  the  uni- 
verse is  not  indifferent  to  them;  that  the  good  is 
better  than  the  evil  is  also  in  the  universe,  a  force 
making  for  righteousness. 

"  I  said  that  the  essentials  for  a  religion  were 
Spirit  and  Faith.  Faith  is  simply  trust,  trust  in  the 
supreme  power,  trust  in  the  central  fact.  I^ow  the 
mystical  mood  of  mind  is  simply  faith  or  trust  in 
its  utter  completeness.  Mysticism  is  essentially  a 
moral  and  spiritual  phenomenon.  We  are  no  longer 
perplexed  or  made  desolate  by  the  need  of  responding 
in  spirit  to  the  thousand-fold  intricate  and  dubious 
facts  of  the  inner  world.  We  have  seen  the  guiding 
thread,  recognised  the  law,  conformed  to  the  Gov- 
ernance. The  One  delivers  us  from  the  many.  To 
the  One,  in  scientific  parlance,  the  spirit  can  '  react.' 
That  reaction  is  the  self-abandonment  of  mysticism, 
the  union  with  that  which  is  supreme.  All  religion 
is  a  quest  for  the  One  in  the  many.  Therefore  the 
mystic  attitude  is  the  consummation  of  religion. 

"  This  consummation  is  wrought  in  the  human 
spirit  by  Faith  and  by  Love.  In  the  early  stages  of 
religious  feeling  man  turns  to  the  supreme  for  the 


126  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

benefits  he  can  receive ;  as  a  dog  turns  to  his  master 
for  food  or  for  safety.  Later  this  attitude  changes. 
The  thought  of  self  lessens.  We  seek  this  central 
power  of  life  not  with  the  hope  of  the  benefactions 
that  flow  therefrom,  but  as  we  seek  one  we  love,  for 
companionship  and  for  itself.  We  learn  first  to  de- 
pend, then  to  reverence,  and  then  to  love.  With  love 
comes  the  desire  for  union,  and  from  the  desire  is 
born  the  fact  and  the  experience  —  the  mystic  union 
with  the  core  of  things. 

"  I  would  be  very  glad  to  hear  what  you  think  of 
these  views." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  But  you  have  not  yet 
spoken  on  your  fourth  topic.  Will  you  not 
continue  ? " 

THE  OXONIAN  :  "  This  was  to  be  an  evening  of 
talk,  not  of  monologue.  I  think  you  must  let  me 
postpone  my  remaining  subject." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  If  we  are  sure  it  is  only 
a  postponement,  let  it  be  as  you  wish.  You  certainly 
have  given  us  ample  matter  for  consideration;  and 
sometimes  it  is  true  that  if  we  have  too  broad  a  field, 
discussion  falters  from  the  very  richness  of  possi- 
bility. I  am  very  glad,  however,  that  we  made  you 
present  these  three  subjects  as  a  single  sequence,  for 
I  think  they  tend  to  clarify  one  another.  In  par- 
ticular it  seems  to  me  we  must  view  the  religious 
need  in  the  light  of  its  satisfaction.  We  frequently 


MYSTICISM    AND    FAITH        127 

hear  arguments,  for  the  existence  of  a  supreme  power 
of  good,  drawn  from  the  craving  of  the  human  heart, 
and  I  confess  that  these  arguments  in  a  way  impress 
me.  I  suppose,  for  example,  it  could  be  assumed 
that  if  water  had  never  existed,  no  form  of  life  could 
ever  have  developed  which  would  need  water,  and 
that  thus  the  thirst  is  evidence  of  the  existence  of  that 
which  will  satisfy  it.  Yet  this  argument  from  our 
necessities  involves  so  many  doubtful  factors  that  it 
is  far  from  conclusive.  We  must  demonstrate  that 
this  is  indeed  a  necessity  of  our  being,  not  some 
dreamed-of  luxury,  and  even  when  we  have  done  this 
it  remains  to  find  the  satisfaction  we  have  shown 
needful.  Therefore  no  reasoning  from  our  needs, 
however  valid,  can  be  either  so  convincing  or  so  de- 
sirable as  the  direct  satisfaction  of  those  needs  in 
experience.  This  is  what  mysticism  does  for  its 
followers.  In  the  inner  union  with  the  heart  of 
things,  the  satisfaction  of  the  religious  craving  be- 
comes a  fact  of  immediate  experience.  So,  though 
the  craving  of  the  heart  may  be  the  origin  of  reli- 
gion, the  experience  of  the  mystic  is  its  justification. 
"  Do  you  not  think  with  me  that,  taken  alone,  your 
first  argument  is  rather  cold  ? " 

THE  OXONIAN  :  "  It  is  purely  psychological ;   yes." 

THE  EDITOE  :  "  But  few  have  the  experience  you 

tell  us  characterises  the  mystic.     Until  this  comes 

have  we  not  the  need  for  such  arguments  as  Mr.  M — 


128  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

has  given?  The  early  stage  of  mysticism,  as  of  all 
religion,  must  be  a  matter  of  faith;  and  does  not 
faith  largely  consist  in  trusting  these  cravings  of  the 
heart?  In  the  belief  that  if  we  persist  we  will  ex- 
perience their  satisfaction  ? " 

THE  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  We  are  getting  down  to 
some  very  fundamental  thinking,  and  I  am  finding 
my  own  views  much  clearer  than  they  were.  One 
thing  that  struck  me  particularly  is  the  parallel  be- 
tween this  thesis  of  M — 's  and  that  which  the  Zo- 
ologist gave  us  two  meetings  ago.  I  do  not  know 
whether  it  was  as  noticeable  to  the  rest  of  you  as  it 
was  to  me,  but  I  found  myself  thinking  of  it  con- 
tinually as  M —  was  talking,  and  that  I  was  again 
compelled  to  agree  with  the  scientists  —  whom  I 
despise." 

THE  OXONIAN  :  "  That  is  very  interesting.  I  wish 
I  had  heard  the  Zoologist." 

THE  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  Approaching  religion  from 
a  purely  biological  point  of  view,  his  presentation 
was  from  the  scientific  standpoint,  while  yours  was 
from  that  of  the  psychologist  and  the  mystic.  Yet 
the  thread  of  the  two  discourses  seemed  to  me  the 
same;  and  still  more  marked  was  the  similarity  of 
the  general  conclusions  reached :  that  our  chief  good 
lay  in  an  acceptance  of  the  universe  as  it  is;  in  as 
close  a  union  with  its  spirit  and  its  laws  as  we  can 
compass.  As  I  said  before,  we  find  the  attainment 


MYSTICISM    AND    FAITH        129 

of  our  desires  hedged  around  by  certain  restrictions, 
not  of  our  own  making,  but  inherent  in  life  itself. 
Let  us  accept  them  joyfully,  enthusiastically,  and  in 
obedience  to  them  let  us  become  one  with  them.  Let 
us  unite  ourselves  to  Life. 

"  All  this  is  clearer  to  me  than  it  was,  and  seems 
more  fundamental,  more  truly  the  basis  of  a  reli- 
gious attitude.  But  there  are  certain  problems  which 
it  does  not  solve.  We  need  either  a  wider  basis  or 
to  build  further  upon  what  we  have.  For  certain 
facts  of  experience,  certain  common  phenomena  of 
religious  feeling  are  co-ordinated  and  organised  in 
neither  science  nor  ethics,  nor  do  I  see  how  they  are 
correlated  with  the  basic  principles  we  are  consider- 
ing. I  mean  such  a  desire  as  that  which  we  all  have 
to  play  providence  to  those  we  love ;  to  our  children, 
to  our  wives,  and  even  to  our  friends.  We  long  to 
stand  between  them  and  life,  to  shield  and  guard 
them,  to  keep  them  from  the  rigour  of  these  restric- 
tions, even  from  the  very  union  which  we  are  now 
viewing  as  an  ultimate  satisfaction  of  our  hearts' 
craving.  How  are  we  to  explain  and  organise  such 
desires  as  these  ?  Or  again,  when  we  have  done  our 
utmost,  or  when  in  advance  we  get  some  heartsick 
perception  of  how  impotent  we  are  in  the  face  of 
nature,  of  how  life  sweeps  away  the  safeguards  which 
we  try  to  rear,  and  how  light  and  permeable  is  the 
shield  our  love  and  thought  at  best  can  furnish,  what 

9 


130  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

a  longing  there  is  then  to  take  all  this,  all  our  fears 
and  premonitions,  our  love  and  our  loved  ones,  and 
lay  them  all  in  the  hands  of  God.  We  call  upon 
Him  to  do  what  we  can  not.  Yet  what  is  it  we  are 
asking?  For  God  to  shield  from  God?  For  Life, 
whose  heart  we  seek,  to  keep  us  from  Itself?  What 
is  the  organisation  of  this  ?  " 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  You  ask  the  explanation 
of  human  pain  and  fear ;  of  the  tragedy  and  pathos 
of  love.  It  would  need  a  far  wiser  man  than  I  to 
answer  you,  and  yet  I  think  the  secret  lies  in  that 
reproach  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples,  when  terrified  hy 
the  storm  they  called  upon  him  to  awake  and  save, 
'  Oh,  ye  of  little  faith.'  Even  when  we  have  learned 
to  trust  ourselves  to  Fate,  to  see  that  it  is  in  our 
power  to  gain  from  all  that  can  come  to  us,  whether 
of  joy  or  sorrow,  even  then  we  fear  to  trust  those  we 
love  to  the  same  great  current." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  Here  you  touch  upon  an  element 
which  I  brought  up  before,  and  which  it  seems  to  me 
we  will  have  sooner  or  later  to  consider  in  a  manner 
more  commensurate  with  its  importance;  that  is, 
the  element  of  faith.  I  believe  the  Oxonian  defined 
mysticism  as  faith  in  its  utter  completeness,  or,  per- 
haps, as  the  consciousness  following  this  act  of  faith. 
But  whatever  words  were  used,  he  certainly  meant 
that  faith  was  a  prerequisite,  and  I  believe  it  to  be 
a  prerequisite  in  all  religions.  All  religious  teaching 


MYSTICISM    AND    FAITH        131 

that  I  know  anything  about  requires  us  to  transfer 
the  basis  of  our  lives  from  dependence  upon  external 
things  to  dependence  upon  spiritual  law,  or  upon 
some  form  of  providence.  Spiritual  experience,  the 
illumination  of  the  saint,  the  sense  of  union  with 
God  to  which  the  mystic  attains,  all  these  are  the 
results  of  such  a  reversal  of  basis.  And  for  this, 
faith,  and  great  faith,  is  indisputably  needed.  In- 
deed, I  think  faith  is  not  only  the  first  factor  in  the 
religious  life,  but  one  which  is  constantly  required; 
which,  in  fact,  underlies  all  progress;  for  every  step 
in  advance  is  away  from  the  known  and  into  the 
unknown." 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  I  must  hold  that,  so  far  as  we 
have  any  record,  faith  has  not  led  to  progress  but  to 
stagnation.  Progress  seems  rather  to  have  resulted 
from  the  restless  seeking  of  those  who  were  without 
faith,  who  did  not  believe,  and  so  continued  their 
search." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  See  how  even  the  mighty 
fall!  Is  not  this  the  fallacy  of  the  undistributed 
middle  in  which  we,  logicians,  theologians,  and  sci- 
entists alike  are  now  snared  ?  (  There  lies  more  faith 
in  honest  doubt,  believe  me,  than  in  half  the  creeds.' 
There  is  a  faith  in  formulas,  in  common  beliefs,  in 
the  fashions  of  the  time ;  but  there  is  something  far 
more  fundamental  than  these,  —  a  faith  in  truth,  in 
law,  in  the  heart  and  essence  of  life.  But  for  his 


132  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

faith  in  truth  and  in  law  no  man  would  seek  for 
truth,  let  alone  being  discontented  with  its  popular 
counterfeits.  The  greater  faith  prevents  the  lesser. 
But  it  is  the  greater  faith  that  is  operative  in  true 
religion,  so  far  as  religion  is  lived;  as  I  believe  it 
is  in  science,  so  far  as  science  is  the  search  for  truth. 
Popular  science  and  popular  religion  alike  present 
the  static  adherence  to  an  external  formula,  which 
you  justly  say  leads  to  stagnation,  but  which  is 
rather  too  mean  and  poor  a  thing  to  designate  as 
faith." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  It  is  your  '  greater  '  faith  to  which 
I  refer." 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  But  must  not  science  be  the 
guide  in  this?  I  do  not  think  we  are  compelled  to 
grant  your  contention  that  faith  in  the  existence  of 
a  solution  underlies  all  our  questioning.  We  may  be 
prompted  by  sheer  curiosity.  But  assuming  that 
there  always  is  such  a  faith,  then  I  would  say  that 
it  is  valuable  so  far  as  it  is  scientific  —  so  far, 
that  is,  as  it  is  a  faith  based  upon  scientific  observa- 
tion and  inference,  so  far  as  science  is  its  guiding 
principle. 

"  A  man  on  the  edge  of  a  precipice  may,  if  he  is 
sufficiently  crazy,  have  the  '  faith '  that  he  could 
throw  himself  over  in  safety.  It  would  be  a  rank 
delusion,  though  his  faith  in  it  might  be  supreme. 
To  act  upon  a  faith  like  this  would  be  simple  suicide, 


MYSTICISM    AND    FAITH         133 

and  in  general  an  unguided  faith  is  a  danger  both 
to  the  man  holding  it  and  to  everyone  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood. The  only  safe  guide  for  faith  is  science. 
Certainly  the  vague,  hazy  concepts  of  the  mystic  are 
no  trustworthy  substitute." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  There  I  agree  with  you 
only  in  part.  I  grant  you  that  faith  must  be  guided. 
Indeed,  I  suspect,  in  order  properly  to  be  called 
faith,  it  must  both  be  guided  by  experience  and 
rooted  therein.  But  there  is  no  particular  reason 
why  this  experience  should  be  in  the  history  of  the 
body  rather  than  of  the  spirit.  Just  so  far  as  sci- 
ence confines  itself  to  the  physical  world  its  useful- 
ness as  a  guide  is  limited  to  things  physical.  It  is, 
as  it  were,  the  common  organised  experience  of  things 
physical,  and,  unless  our  individual  experience  is 
deeper  than  that  of  mankind  at  large,  we  would  be 
very  foolish  to  disregard  this  guide  in  the  world 
where  it  operates  —  in  the  world  of  precipices  and 
falling  bodies,  and  shock  of  contact. 

"  But  the  experiences  of  the  spirit  modern  science 
has  not  organised.  So  in  the  inner  world  physical 
science  can  help  us  only  by  correspondence  and  an- 
alogy. The  guide  to  our  faith  must  be  direct  experi- 
ence, either  of  our  own  or  of  those  who  have  entered 
there  before  us.  And  this  is  mysticism.  Mysticism 
is  the  philosophy  of  direct  experience  —  immediate, 
individual,  and  incommunicable,  save  through  ex- 


134  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

perience.  I  quite  agree  with  you  that  the  '  concepts  ' 
of  the  mystic  are  frequently  vague  and  distorted. 
They  are  only  the  mental  interpretation  of  some- 
thing which  is  beyond  the  mind ;  the  shadows  thrown 
on  the  screen  of  the  brain  by  the  soul  in  the  Light  of 
the  Heavens.  But  the  experience  itself  is  not  vague, 
nor  is  the  faith  it  inculcates  wandering  and  un- 
directed. Let  us  remember  also  that  science  is  only 
useful  as  it  guides  us  to  experience.  The  experience 
itself  is  what  is  of  value,  both  in  the  outer  and  in  the 
inner  worlds.  The  description  of  that  experience  is 
of  very  secondary  moment." 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  I  am  unconvinced.  I  think, 
with  the  Philosopher,  that  there  is  a  certain  parallel 
between  the  biological  view  of  ethics,  which  I  tried 
to  present,  and  this  which  Mr.  M —  has  given  us 
to-night.  But,  frankly,  that  parallel  confirms  me  in 
the  opinion  that  the  former  is  adequate;  that  there 
is  no  need  to  talk  about  mysticism;  that  all  that  is 
of  value  here  is  science,  or  capable  of  explanation  in 
scientific  terms  rather  than  in  the  vague  nomencla- 
ture of  mysticism  and  religion." 

THE  OXONIAN  :  "  No,  I  could  never  agree  to  that. 
Science  can  never  fulfil  the  function  of  religion.  Its 
terms  and  methods  can  never  replace  those  of  mysti- 
cism. They  are  opposite  poles.  Their  ends  are 
totally  distinct.  Science  is  always  analytical,  always 
dissecting;  as  a  botanist  pulls  a  rose  to  pieces  to 


MYSTICISM    AND    FAITH        135 

examine  its  petals  and  stamens  under  his  microscope, 
and  in  the  process  the  subtle  beauty  which  kindles 
us  is  lost.  I  remember  an  aphorism  of  a  friend  of 
mine  which  is  apposite  here.  He  said :  '  Mechanics 
is  the  science  of  force,  with  the  Force  left  out;  Bi- 
ology is  the  science  of  life,  with  the  Life  left  out; 
Ethics  is  the  science  of  morality,  with  the  Morale 
left  out.'  Religion,  on  the  other  hand,  cares  little 
for  explanation,  but  is  always  kindling ;  always  seek- 
ing and  cherishing,  in  what  it  meets,  that  inner 
quickening  spark  which  can  kindle  our  hearts.  The 
difference  is  well  illustrated  in  two  men:  Carlyle 
and  John  Stuart  Mill;  Mill,  a  painstaking,  consci- 
entious, thorough  analyst,  longing  to  be  kindled, 
loving  a  woman  who  could  kindle  him,  and  admir- 
ing Carlyle  for  his  vivifying  power,  but  withal 
himself  '  dry  as  dust ' ;  Carlyle  dramatic,  living, 
kindling  the  imagination  and  the  heart,  but  despis- 
ing Mill's  analytic  power  which  he,  Carlyle,  had 
not." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  The  mystic  sees  with  the 
closed  eye;  the  scientist  with  the  open.  Science 
and  analysis  are  constantly  enriching  the  facts  upon 
which  the  inner  eye  will  now  or  later  look.  Religion 
means  more  to  us  the  more  we  learn,  and  I  believe 
we  in  the  Church  should  be  very  grateful  to  you  men 
of  science  who  have  so  broadened  and  clarified  our 
outlook." 


136  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Surely  both  are  neces- 
sary. I  certainly  would  be  the  last  to  advocate  either 
outer  or  inner  blindness.  I  want  the  whole  of  life; 
vision  wherever  vision  is  possible,  consciousness  and 
experience  on  every  plane  of  my  being.  Religion  does 
not  mean  to  me  something  which  takes  me  away  from 
life,  but  something  which,  as  the  Philosopher  put  it, 
unites  me  thereto,  embracing  and  making  its  own 
all  that  is  best,  all  that  is  quickening,  wherever  found. 

"  But  we  have  heard  nothing  from  the  Author  all 
the  evening,  and  I  know  he  has  ideas  in  plenty  on 
this  point." 

THE  AUTHOE:  "Let  my  contribution  be  the  re- 
quest to  Mr.  M —  to  speak  on  his  fourth  topic,  the 
position  or  function  of  the  Church  to-day.  It  should 
be  very  pertinent  to  what  the  Clergyman  was  saying 
of  the  relation  of  the  Church  to  science." 

THE  OXONIAN  :  "  You  must  really  let  me  off  from 
that  this  evening.  The  topic  is  too  ambitious  and 
immense.  The  place  of  the  Church  can  not  be  settled 
at  this  eleventh  hour  —  or  somewhat  later,  as  I  fear 
it  now  is.  Let  me,  instead,  buttress  myself  with 
Cardinal  Newman  and  read  to  you  an  extract  from 
his  essays  in  the  '  Development  of  Christian  Doctrine/ 
to  which  I  referred  last  time.  It  bears  more  or  less 
upon  the  theme  the  Mathematician  has  just  advanced, 
the  divine  hospitality  of  religion,  and  particularly  of 
Christianity.  Here  it  is: 


MYSTICISM    AND    FAITH        137 

The  phenomenon  admitted  on  all  hands  is  this: 
That  great  portion  of  what  is  generally  received  as  Chris- 
tian truth  is,  in  its  rudiments  or  in  its  separate  parts,  to 
be  found  in  heathen  philosophies  and  religions.  For 
instance,  the  doctrine  of  a  Trinity  is  found  both  in  the 
East  and  in  the  West;  so  is  the  ceremony  of  washing; 
so  is  the  rite  of  sacrifice.  The  doctrine  of  the  Divine 
Word  is  Platonic;  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  is 
Indian ;  of  a  divine  kingdom  is  Judaic ;  of  Angels  and 
demons  is  Magian;  the  connection  of  sin  with  the  body 
is  Gnostic ;  celibacy  is  known  to  Bonze  and  Talapoin ;  a 
sacerdotal  order  is  Egyptian ;  the  idea  of  a  new  birth  is 
Chinese  and  Eleusinian;  belief  in  sacramental  virtue  is 
Pythagorean ;  and  honours  to  the  dead  are  a  polytheism. 
Such  is  the  general  nature  of  the  fact  before  us;  Mr. 
Milman  argues  from  it  —  "  These  things  are  in  heathen- 
ism, therefore  they  are  not  Christian " :  we,  on  the 
contrary,  prefer  to  say  —  "  These  things  are  in  Chris- 
tianity, therefore  they  are  not  heathen."  That  is,  we 
prefer  to  say,  and  we  think  that  Scripture  bears  us  out 
in  saying,  that  from  the  beginning  the  Moral  Governor 
of  the  world  has  scattered  the  seeds  of  truth  far  and  wide 
over  its  extent ;  that  these  have  variously  taken  root,  and 
grown  up  as  in  the  wilderness,  wild  plants,  indeed,  but 
living;  and  hence  that,  as  the  inferior  animals  have 
tokens  of  an  immaterial  principle  in  them,  yet  have  not 
souls,  so  the  philosophies  and  religions  of  men  have  their 
life  in  certain  true  ideas,  though  they  are  not  directly 
divine.  What  man  is  amid  the  brute  creation,  such  is 
the  Church  among  the  schools  of  the  world;  and  as 
Adam  gave  names  to  the  animals  about  him,  so  has  the 
Church  from  the  first  looked  round  upon  the  earth, 


138  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

noting  and  visiting  the  doctrines  she  found  there.  She 
began  in  Chaldea,  and  then  sojourned  among  the  Canaan- 
ites,  and  went  down  into  Egypt,  and  thence  passed  into 
Arabia,  till  she  rested  in  her  own  land.  Next  she  en- 
countered the  merchants  of  Tyre,  and  the  wisdom  of  the 
East  country,  and  the  luxury  of  Sheba.  Then  she  was 
carried  away  to  Babylon,  and  wandered  to  the  schools 
of  Greece.  And  wherever  she  went,  in  trouble  or  in 
triumph,  still  she  was  a  living  spirit,  the  mind  and  voice 
of  the  Most  High ;  "  sitting  in  the  midst  of  the  doctors, 
both  hearing  them  and  asking  them  questions  " ;  claiming 
to  herself  what  they  said  rightly,  correcting  their  errors, 
supplying  their  defects,  completing  their  beginnings, 
expanding  their  surmises,  and  thus  gradually  by  means 
of  them  enlarging  the  range  and  refining  the  sense  of 
her  own  teaching.  So  far  then  from  her  being  of  doubt- 
ful credit  because  it  resembles  foreign  theologies,  we 
even  hold  that  one  special  way  in  which  Providence  has 
imparted  divine  knowledge  to  us  has  been  by  enabling 
her  to  draw  and  collect  it  together  out  of  the  world,  and, 
in  this  sense  as  in  others,  "to  suck  the  milk  of  the 
Gentiles  and  to  suck  the  breast  of  kings." 

How  far  in  fact  this  process  has  gone  is  a  question 
of  history ;  and  we  believe  it  has  before  now  been  grossly 
exaggerated  and  misrepresented  by  those  who,  like  Mr. 
Milman,  have  thought  that  its  existence  told  against 
Catholic  doctrine ;  but  so  little  antecedent  difficulty  have 
we  in  the  matter,  that  we  could  readily  grant,  unless  it 
were  a  question  of  fact  not  of  theory,  that  Balaam  was 
an  Eastern  sage,  or  a  Sibyl  was  inspired,  or  Solomon 
learnt  of  the  sons  of  Mahol,  or  Moses  was  a  scholar  of 
the  Egyptian  hierophants.  We  are  not  distressed  to  be 


MYSTICISM    AND    FAITH         139 

told  that  the  doctrine  of  the  angelic  host  came  from 
Babylon,  while  we  know  that  they  did  sing  at  the  Na- 
tivity; nor  that  the  vision  of  a  Mediator  is  in  Philo, 
if  in  very  deed  He  died  for  us  on  Calvary.  Nor  are 
we  afraid  to  allow  that  even  after  His  coming  the 
Church  has  been  a  treasure-house,  giving  forth  things 
old  and  new,  casting  the  gold  of  fresh  tributaries 
into  her  refiner's  fire,  or  stamping  upon  her  own,  as 
time  required  it,  a  deeper  impress  of  her  Master's 
image. 

The  distinction  between  these  two  theories  is  broad 
and  obvious.  The  advocates  of  the  one  imply  that  Beve- 
lation  was  a  single,  entire,  solitary  act,  or  nearly  so,  in- 
troducing a  certain  message ;  whereas  we,  who  maintain 
the  other,  consider  that  Divine  teaching  has  been  in  fact 
what  the  analogy  of  nature  would  lead  us  to  expect,  "  at 
sundry  times  and  in  divers  manners,"  various,  complex, 
progressive,  and  supplemental  of  itself.  We  consider  the 
Christian  doctrine,  when  analyzed,  to  appear,  like  the 
human  frame,  "  fearfully  and  wonderfully  made  " ;  but 
they  think  it  some  one  tenet  or  certain  principles  given 
out  at  one  time  in  their  fulness,  without  gradual  en- 
largement before  Christ's  coming  or  elucidation  after- 
wards. They  cast  off  all  that  they  also  find  in  Pharisees 
or  heathen;  we  conceive  that  the  Church,  like  Aaron's 
rod,  devours  the  serpents  of  the  magicians.  They  are 
ever  hunting  for  a  fabulous  primitive  simplicity;  we 
repose  in  Catholic  fulness.  They  seek  what  never  has 
been  found;  we  accept  and  use  what  even  they  acknowl- 
edge to  be  a  substance.* 

*  "Development   of   Christian   Doctrine"   by  John   Henry 
(Cardinal)  Newman,  pp.  380-382. 


140  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

"  This  assimilative  power  of  the  Church,  exercised 
upon  the  products  of  human  thought  in  all  their  ful- 
ness and  variety,  is  the  natural  prerogative  of  the 
Christian  spirit.  The  Christian  stress  on  sympathy 
should  be  interpreted  as  including  intellectual  sym- 
pathy, —  imaginative  sympathy.  Just  as  Christ 
came  to  men  '  that  they  might  have  life  and  that 
they  might  have  it  more  abundantly,'  so  the  Church 
should  come  to  them  at  the  present  day." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  You  have  voiced  my  own 
ideal  of  what  a  Church  should  be :  not  insisting  upon 
any  language  of  its  own,  but  speaking  the  tongue  of 
those  whom  it  addresses;  not  waiting  for  others  to 
come  to  it,  but  in  sympathy  and  brotherhood  going 
out  to  them;  not  to  convert,  but  to  aid  and  to 
quicken,  —  that  there  may  be  more  light.  I  was 
not  familiar  with  that  passage  from  Newman  and 
it  is  of  the  greatest  interest  to  me,  for  it  puts  for- 
ward an  ideal  which,  as  a  member  of  the  Theosoph- 
ical  Society,  I  have  long  held,  but  which  one  finds 
too  seldom  in  the  churches.  I  mean  the  universality 
of  religious  inspiration;  that  truth  is  to  be  found  in 
all  religions;  the  deepest  truths  in  their  common 
part.  To  find  this  common  part  both  in  historic 
systems  of  religion  and  in  the  individual  aspira- 
tion of  those  around  us,  has  been  the  object  of 
the  Theosophical  Society's  activities  for  many  years. 
Naturally,  therefore,  your  quotation  interests  me 


MYSTICISM    AND    FAITH        141 

much,  both  on  account  of  its  content  and  its 
source. 

"  If  I  may  be  permitted,  however,  I  would  like  to 
return  to  another  point  you  made  in  your  description 
of  mysticism.  You  spoke  of  our  turning  to  the 
Spirit,  first  for  the  favours  it  could  confer,  for 
some  material  benefit  or  protection,  but  that  later 
we  learned  a  more  selfless  love,  and  sought  union 
and  companionship  with  the  heart  of  life  because  of 
love  rather  than  because  of  fear.  The  first  of  these 
two  attitudes  seems  to  me  exactly  illustrated  in  Chris- 
tian Science,  and  in  much  of  the  so-called  (  New 
Thought/  where  health,  happiness,  and  even  success 
in  business,  are  held  out,  not  alone  as  rewards,  but 
as  primary  inducements  to  religion.  I  would  like  to 
know  whether  you  agree  with  me  that  these  move- 
ments are  typical  of  the  most  rudimentary  religious 
instinct;  in  short,  like  a  marriage  solely  for  money, 
little  above  the  prostitution  of  what  is  sacred  to  what 
is  very  low." 

THE  OXONIAN  :  "  No,  I  do  not  agree  with  you  at 
all.  These  movements  contain  elements  that  we  can 
not  afford  to  dispense  with.  As  you  yourself  said, 
one's  religion  should  unite  one  to  life,  make  every 
part  of  existence  better  and  sweeter,  above  all,  cleaner 
and  more  healthful.  The  care  of  the  body  is  worthy 
and  by  no  means  to  be  neglected.  There  is  good 
scriptural  testimony  to  the  fact  that  the  body  is  the 


142  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  the  temple  is  to 
be  kept  worthy  and  reverenced.  The  ideal  of  beauty 
and  symmetry  of  development,  in  the  body  as  in  the 
mind  and  spirit,  is  that  which  the  world  owes  to  the 
culture  of  the  Greeks;  and  it  is  one  of  the  things 
toward  which  I  think  Christianity  should  be  hos- 
pitable —  should  add  to  the  long  roll  of  sifted  good 
in  the  treasure  of  her  teaching." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  Hear !    hear !  " 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Since  you  won't  agree 
with  me  I  shall  have  to  agree  with  you.  Mens  sana 
in  corpore  sano  is  to  be  aimed  for  by  us  all,  and 
symmetry  of  development  is  infinitely  to  be  desired. 
Nevertheless,  do  not  let  us  seek  to  coin  the  Spirit 
into  dollars,  nor  turn  aspiration  and  prayer  into  fat. 
With  your  type  of  Christian  Science  I  fancy  I  have 
no  quarrel,  but  with  the  usual  kind  I  have.  I  think 
with  you  there  is  deep  truth  in  the  promise  of  Jesus : 
'  Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  his  righteous- 
ness; and  all  these  things  shall  be  added  unto  you/ 
But  the  kingdom  of  God  was  to  be  first.  It  is  the 
reversal  of  emphasis  which  I  object  to  in  Christian 
Science." 

THE  OXONIAN:  "But  is  it  more  than  an  appeal 
from  a  false  self  to  a  true  one  ?  We  know  that  the 
real  '  I '  is  not  ill,  only  this  thing  we  wrongly  call 
ourselves.  Just  as  in  speech  we  are  sometimes,  let 
us  say,  guilty  of  some  rudeness  or  absurdity,  and 


MYSTICISM    AND    FAITH        143 

then  suddenly  check  ourselves  with  the  remark,  '  Oh, 
I  beg  your  pardon!  I  did  not  mean  that.  That  is 
not  at  all  my  real  opinion/  thus  appealing  from  a 
false  self  to  a  real  one,  so  I  think  the  Christian 
Scientist  checks  himself  when  falling  into  a  like 
absurdity." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Note,  however,  that  here 
we  appeal  to  the  better  self  to  do  the  will  of  the 
better  self,  not  to  do  the  will  of  the  lower  self.  We 
do  not  deny  the  absurdity ;  on  the  contrary,  we  recog- 
nise it  fully  and  seek  to  detach  ourselves  therefrom 
and  to  correct  its  cause." 

THE  OXONIAN:  "That  is  true." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  That  is  my  twofold  ob- 
jection to  Christian  Science;  first,  that  it  falsifies 
the  facts,  and  second,  that  its  prayer  is,  '  my  will  not 
Thine  be  done.'  Which  one  of  us  has  not  experienced 
the  spiritual  growth  that  comes  from  hardship,  de- 
privation, struggle,  and  pain  ?  And  yet  we  continu- 
ally treat  these  things  as  evils,  and  the  instant  they 
confront  us  we  cringe  and  cower.  The  Christian 
Scientist  invokes  the  soul  to  save  his  body,  careless 
of  the  need  of  the  soul,  careless  of  the  integrity  of 
his  fate." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  I  wish  that  idea  of  symmetry 
of  development  and  the  religious  value  of  beauty  and 
force  could  receive  more  attention  in  the  Church. 
This  old  notion  that  you  must  starve  the  body  to  be 


144  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

religious  is  utterly  misleading.  Your  bodily  vigour 
is  one  of  your  talents.  One  of  the  things  you  must 
make  the  most  of,  put  out  at  usury,  and  bring  both 
principal  and  interest  to  the  service  of  God.  Is  it  a 
trouble  to  have  too  much  physical  energy?  Does 
your  vitality  tend  to  run  away  with  you?  That  is 
no  reason  why  you  should  throw  it  away.  Every- 
thing that  is  worth  while,  that  has  power  and  force 
and  can  work,  has  to  be  mastered  and  controlled. 
But  it  is  none  the  less  necessary  to  use  it  and  to  make 
it  as  strong  and  efficient  as  we  can. 

"  But  how  infinitely  broader  and  freer  our  concept 
of  Christianity  is  to-day  than  it  used  to  be!  I  re- 
member the  old  slur  that  used  to  be  brought  against 
us  of  a  narrow  Christianity,  a  narrow,  one-sided  view 
of  life.  But  now  how  much  better  we  see!  How 
we  recognise  that  there  is  nothing  good  foreign  to  the 
message  of  Jesus ;  that  all  the  accumulated  spiritual 
treasures  of  the  world  are  truly  our  heritage;  that 
there  is  no  corner  or  cranny  of  life  that  cannot  give 
to  Christianity  some  new  gem,  and  into  which  Chris- 
tianity does  not  shed  some  new  and  beautifying  light ! 
Contrast  the  broad  Christianity  of  to-day  with  the 
narrow  theology  of  '  Eobert  Elsmere.' ' 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  I  quite  agree  with  you,  Mr.  F — , 
that  genuine  Christianity  should  be  the  teaching  of 
the  life  of  the  soul,  and  that  nothing  foreign  to  the 
soul  of  man  could  be  foreign  to  Christianity.  Would 


MYSTICISM    AND    FAITH        145 

it  not  be  interesting  in  this  connection  to  examine 
again  the  question  of  what  are  the  essentials  of  Chris- 
tianity ?  What  is  it  that  gives  it  its  light  and  its 
power  ?  As  we  look  back  upon  the  narrow  Chris- 
tianity of  which  you  speak,  and  back  of  that  upon 
the  history  of  the  Church  through  all  the  Middle 
Ages,  there  seems  very  little  in  the  organisation  that 
is  capable  of  illumination;  or  that  could  touch  the 
soul  in  any  way,  unless  it  be  with  horror.  And  yet 
something  of  the  kind  must  have  been  there.  The 
flame  must  have  been  carried  down  unextinguished. 
I  believe  if  we  were  really  to  study  it,  we  could  trace 
an  unbroken  descent,  a  spiritual  heritage  throughout 
the  centuries,  the  history  of  the  '  Church  Invisible/ 
the  history  of  the  Illuminati.  What  little  reading 
I  have  been  able  to  do  has  confirmed  me  in  this 
opinion." 


10 


VI 

THE  HISTORIAN'S  VIEW 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN:  "It  will  be  re- 
membered tbat  at  our  last  meeting  the  Ox- 
onian spoke  to  us  of  the  origin  and  meaning 
of  the  religious  sense;  of  the  problem  of  evil;  and 
of  mysticism.  The  first  of  these  he  presented  as 
rooted  in  the  need  of  the  human  spirit  to  synthesise 
its  environment,  so  infinitely  wider  than  that  of  the 
brutes,  and,  in  its  trust  in  the  One  behind  the  many, 
to  find  support  or  relief  from  the  prolonged  rever- 
berations of  feeling  which  sweep  over  us  from  the 
mystery  of  life  and  from  the  vast  impersonality  of 
nature. 

"  The  second  —  the  problem  of  the  existence  of 
evil  in  a  universe  which  we  would  believe  ruled  by 
good  —  could,  he  said,  find  a  solution  in  the  exist- 
ence, not  alone  of  good  and  evil,  but  of  the  better; 
which  flows  also  from  the  nature  of  things,  and  shows 
us  that  life  is  not  indifferent  to  good  and  evil,  but 
sets  in  a  steady  current  toward  the  good,  the  sense  of 
which  current  we  call  the  better.  As  we  conform 
ourselves  to  this  we  are  led  to  a  deepening  sense  of 
trust  and  of  love,  which  in  their  utter  completeness 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        147 

constitute  the  experience  of  mysticism,  —  the  con- 
scious union  of  the  soul  with  that  which  is  above 
and  heyond  it,  and  which  is  the  consummation  of 
religion. 

"  There  was  a  fourth  topic  proposed  —  the  place 
of  the  Church  in  the  present  age;  but  this  the  Ox- 
onian begged  to  postpone,  so  that  what  we  actually 
considered  was  personal  religion,  —  religion  as  an 
inherent  fact  in  the  life  of  the  individual. 

"  There  is,  however,  another  side  to  religion.  Reli- 
gion is  also  an  historic  fact ;  for  around  it  have  been 
built  external  organisations  which  have  moulded  the 
life  of  nations  and  played  no  small  part  in  the  de- 
velopment of  the  race.  I  have  asked  the  Historian 
to  speak  to-night  upon  the  historic  aspect  of  Chris- 
tianity; for,  as  Christianity  is  closest  to  ourselves, 
it  is  through  the  historic  development  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  that  we  can  most  easily  trace  the  effect 
of  organisation  upon  religion,  and  it  is  this  which  I 
trust  the  Historian  will  make  clearer  to  us. 

"  Will  you  not  now  begin,  Professor  B — .  I  think 
that  all  are  here  whom  we  can  expect,  as  I  regret  to 
say  the  Oxonian  telephoned  me  an  hour  or  so  ago 
that  he  would  be  unable  to  come  out  to-night,  hav- 
ing had  a  rather  nasty  fall  which  keeps  him  on  his 
back." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  The  subject  is  such  an  im- 
mense one,  and  covers  such  a  wide  variety  of  topics, 


148  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

themselves  complex,  that  to  treat  it  at  all  intelli- 
gently would  require  not  an  hour's  talk,  but  a  vol- 
uminous treatise. 

"  What  I  have  to  say,  therefore,  must  be  con- 
sidered simply  the  headings  for  such  a  treatise,  illus- 
trated in  one  or  two  places  by  citations  from  the 
original  sources;  for  these  carry  with  them  more  of 
the  atmosphere  of  the  times  than  could  be  given  by 
much  description.  Moreover  they  cannot  be  dis- 
puted, which  is  an  advantage. 

"  In  the  first  place  we  should  have  to  consider  the 
relation  of  the  Church,  as  an  historical  institution, 
to  its  alleged  founder.  As  one  goes  through  the 
synoptic  gospels  to  find  out  what  Jesus  actually 
taught,  one  is  impressed  most,  I  think,  with  the 
fragmentary  character  of  it  all.  Our  knowledge  of 
Jesus's  teachings  is  confined  to  a  year  or  two  of  his 
active  mission,  and  even  the  brief  record  which  we 
have  of  this  is  full  of  repetition  and  more  or  less 
obvious  interpolations  and  later  additions.  For  the 
most  part,  the  synoptical  gospels  contain,  besides  the 
account  of  miracles,  fragmentary  moral  advice  sug- 
gested by  the  exigencies  of  the  occasion,  or  in  answer 
to  questions  addressed  to  Jesus  by  his  followers.  He 
speaks  of  love  for  God  as  our  father,  and  for  our 
neighbour;  of  gentleness,  forgiveness,  humbleness, 
and  meekness.  But  it  is  needless  to  say  that  there  is 
no  trace  in  his  teaching  of  the  imposing  theological, 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        149 

political,  social,  and  cosmological  systems  which  have 
been  combined  in  historic  Christianity. 

"  Thus  the  first  chapter  of  our  imaginary  treatise 
might  be  devoted  to  showing  that  Christianity  talces 
its  name,  but  neither  its  organisation  nor  its  teach- 
ing, from  Christ.  Jesus  did  not  contemplate  the 
Church,  I  think.  It  was  all  a  very  temporary  thing 
with  him.  Indeed,  to  the  reader  examining  the 
gospels  for  the  first  time,  and  without  any  knowledge 
of  the  interpretation  which  has  been  given  to  them, 
it  would  seem  that  Jesus  shared  the  opinion  of  his 
immediate  followers  that  the  end  of  the  world  was 
close  at  hand;  all  things  were  to  be  fulfilled  before 
that  generation  passed  away,  so  there  was  no  need 
of  an  ecclesiastical  organisation,  nor  any  time  for 
one.  Jesus  conformed  to  the  Jewish  ritual,  much  as 
St.  Francis  did,  in  later  centuries,  to  the  Catholic; 
neither  of  them  seemed  to  have  thought  of  estab- 
lishing a  new  religious  sect.  The  possibility  that  his 
followers  might  become  a  rich  and  powerful  order 
was,  indeed,  the  nightmare  of  St.  Francis's  exist- 
ence, for  he  could  look  back  to  similar  perversions 
of  the  spiritual  life  in  earlier  centuries.  Jesus,  how- 
ever, could  hardly  have  imagined  the  foundation  of 
a  Church;  nothing  could  have  been  more  alien  to 
his  life  of  religious  enthusiasm  and  informal  well 
doing  than  a  scrupulously  organised  hierarchy.  Our 
next  chapter,  therefore,  would  have  to  consider  the 


150  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

origin  and  growth  of  organisation  and  the  establish- 
ment of  the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy. 

"  Organisation  came  in  with  Paul.  In  his  epistles 
we  have  our  first  suggestions  of  an  institutional  his- 
tory of  the  Christian  Church.  He  mentions  the 
'  overseers '  and  the  elders  and  deacons,  but  does  not 
define  their  functions  very  definitely.  The  overseer 
grew  into  the  bishop,  and  the  elders,  who  were  evi- 
dently suggested  by  the  elders  of  the  older  Jewish 
organisation,  developed  into  priests,  subject  to  the 
bishops  and  offering  up  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
at  an  altar.  But  the  steps  by  which  this  transforma- 
tion was  accomplished  will  probably  never  be  known 
to  us  completely,  since  the  sources  are  too  fragmen- 
tary to  enable  us  to  trace  the  change.  Nevertheless, 
some  data  is  obtainable,  and  the  period  of  transition 
is  relatively  brief ;  for  as  we  open  the  i  Unity  of  the 
Church '  of  Cyprian  —  who  was  the  Bishop  of  Car- 
thage about  two  centuries  after  the  crucifixion  — 
we  find  it  already  accomplished.  The  original  de- 
mocracy has  passed  away,  and  there  is  now  a  sharp 
distinction  between  the  clergy  '  whose  lot  is  in  the 
Lord'  and  the  laity  or  people.  Moreover,  a  still 
sharper  line  has  been  drawn  between  those  who  accept 
the  '  true  doctrine  necessary  to  salvation '  and  those 
1  enemies  of  God '  who  venture  to  disagree  in  any 
respect.  Heresies  and  schisms  are  the  invention  of 
the  l  Old  Enemy '  of  mankind  who,  now  that  he 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        151 

cannot  keep  men  back  in  the  darkness  of  the  old 
way,  entraps  and  deceives  them  in  the  new.  Once 
the  organisation  was  founded,  adherence  to  it  and 
absolute  acceptance  of  its  teachings  became  imme- 
diately requisite  for  salvation.  The  concept  of  the 
one  Church,  embracing  all  i  the  elect/  which  was  to 
remain  the  fixed  and  ruling  idea  of  Christianity, 
and  of  every  Christian  sect,  as  far  as  one  can  see, 
had  thus  within  two  centuries  completely  overshad- 
owed, if  not  replaced,  the  moral  doctrines  of  Jesus. 
Here  is  a  passage  from  Cyprian's  own  hand  (I  read 
from  his  '  Unity  of  the  Church '),  which  shows  how 
centrally  important  organisation  and  conformity  have 
become  for  him. 

Whoever  is  separated  from  the  Church  is  separated 
from  the  promises  of  the  Church;  nor  can  he  who  for- 
sakes the  Church  of  Christ  attain  to  the  rewards  of 
Christ.  He  is  a  stranger;  he  is  profane;  he  is  an 
enemy !  He  can  no  longer  have  God  for  his  father  who 
has  not  the  Church  for  his  mother.  If  any  one  could 
escape  who  was  outside  the  ark  of  JSToah,  then  he  also 
may  escape  who  shall  be  outside  of  the  Church.  .  .  . 
These  heretics  are  plagues  and  spots  of  the  Faith,  de- 
ceiving with  serpent's  tongue  and  artful  in  corrupting  the 
truth,  vomiting  forth  deadly  poisons  from  pestilential 
tongues;  whose  speech  doth  creep  like  a  cancer,  whose 
discourse  forms  a  deadly  poison  in  the  heart  and  breast 
of  every  one.  .  .  . 

Though  such  a  man  should  suffer  death  for  confessing 
the  name  of  Christ,  his  guilt  is  not  washed  away  by 


152  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

blood,  nor  is  the  grievous  and  inexpiable  sin  of  discord 
wiped  out  by  suffering.  He  who  is  without  the  Church 
cannot  be  a  martyr.  He  cannot  reach  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  .  .  .  Though  they  are  given  over  to  the  flames 
and  burn  in  the  fires ;  though  cast  to  the  wild  beasts,  they 
lay  down  their  lives,  this  shall  not  be  a  crown  of  faith, 
but  a  punishment  of  faithlessness.  Such  a  man  may 
be  killed,  but  not  crowned.* 

"  Having  given  such  account  as  our  sources  permit 
of  the  development  of  the  church  organisation,  it 
would  be  necessary  next  to  follow  its  fortunes,  and 
trace  what  was,  in  effect,  the  transition  of  the  Church 
from  a  religious  to  a  political  institution.  This  would 
have  to  cover  the  periods  in  which  Christianity  was 
first  opposed,  then  tolerated,  and  then  accepted  by 
the  Roman  Emperors ;  and  should  lead  to  an  under- 
standing of  the  position  of  the  Church  in  the  Middle 
Ages.  For  reasons  which  are  not  wholly  clear,  the 
government  of  the  Roman  Empire  very  early  con- 
ceived a  suspicion  of  the  Christians,  and  from  time 
to  time  its  officials  harshly  persecuted  the  adherents 
of  the  new  belief.  It  seems  probable  that  they  were 
regarded  as  turbulent,  unruly  fellows,  brawlers  and 
disturbers  of  the  peace,  seeking  to  overthrow  the 
ancient  religion  and  the  ancient  order,  and  so,  of 
necessity,  dangerous  to  the  existent  government.  It 
must  be  remembered  also  that  disrespect  to  the 

*  De  Catholicae  Ecclesiae  imitate  (Corp.  SS.  Ecc.  Lat.),  §§  6, 
10,  14. 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW         153 

Roman  religion  was  equal  disrespect  to  the  Roman 
Emperor,  as  Pontifex  Maxinms.  It  would  seem  in- 
evitable that  reflections  upon  this  office  should  be 
resented  and  punished.  The  punishments,  however, 
were  clearly  ineffective,  and  at  last  —  to  be  exact, 
in  the  year  311,  some  sixty  or  seventy  years  after 
Cyprian  —  the  Emperor  Galerius,  beset  by  political 
misfortunes  and  the  ravages  of  a  terrible  disease,  de- 
clared that  the  efforts  to  bring  the  Christians  back 
to  the  religion  of  their  ancestors  had  failed.  Many 
of  them  consented,  it  is  true,  to  observe  the  ancient 
customs,  but  as  they  persisted  in  their  former  opin- 
ions, ''We  see  that  in  the  present  situation  they 
neither  adore  and  venerate  the  gods,  nor  yet  worship 
the  god  of  the  Christians.'  The  Emperor  permitted 
them,  therefore,  to  become  Christians  once  more,  and 
to  re-establish  their  places  of  meeting.  i  Wherefore/ 
the  Emperor  concludes,  '  it  should  be  the  duty  of  the 
Christians,  in  view  of  our  clemency,  to  pray  to  their 
god  for  our  welfare,  for  that  of  the  Empire,  and  for 
their  own;  so  that  the  Empire  may  remain  intact 
in  all  its  parts,  and  they  themselves  may  live  safely 
in  their  habitations.7  *  In  short,  it  would  seem  as  if 
poor  Galerius  felt  that  a  certain  amount  of  celestial 
electricity  was  being  wasted  and  that  it  could  not 
but  advantage  him  and  the  Empire  to  encourage 

*  Lactantius,  Demortibuspersecutorum,c.  34  (Corp.  SS.  Ecc. 
Lat.,  xxvii). 


154  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

as  complete  an  exploitation  of  heavenly  powers  as 
possible. 

"  In  this  edict  of  Galerius  Christianity  is  for  the 
first  time  put  upon  a  legal  parity  with  paganism. 
Within  a  few  years  it  had  completely  reversed  the 
tables.  Constantine  formally  accepted  Christianity 
and  actively  interested  himself  in  the  Church.  The 
first  general  council  of  Christendom  was  called  to- 
gether under  his  auspices  in  325,  and  the  religion 
which  had  been  regarded  by  the  earlier  Emperors 
as  a  danger  now  became  the  bulwark  of  the  state. 
The  Christian  clergy  were  successful  in  inducing 
the  Emperors  to  adopt  a  system  of  strict  intoler- 
ance. The  '  turbulent  fellows '  were  no  longer  the 
Christians,  but  those  who  differed  from  them.  It 
was  these  latter  who  were  now  against  the  accepted 
forms,  and  so  possible  sources  of  trouble.  Thus 
orthodoxy  became  a  matter  not  only  of  religion,  but 
of  the  state;  and  religious  heresy  was  to  be  sought 
out  and  punished  by  state  officials. 

"  The  edicts  issued  during  the  next  hundred  years 
have,  many  of  them,  come  down  to  us  in  the  last 
book  of  the  Theodosian  code.  It  is  startling  to  see 
how  completely  the  mediaeval  church  is  sketched  out 
in  their  provisions.  An  extract  or  two  will,  I  think, 
help  us  to  understand  the  temper  of  the  times  and 
the  new  relation  of  the  Emperor  to  the  Christian 
orthodoxy. 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW         155 

"  An  edict  of  380  declares  that: 

"We  desire  that  all  those  who  are  under  the  sway  of  our 
clemency  shall  adhere  to  that  religion  which,  according 
to  his  own  testimony,  coming  down  even  to  our  own  day, 
the  blessed  apostle  Peter  delivered  to  the  Eomans,  namely : 
the  doctrine  which  the  pontiff  Damasus  (Bishop  of 
Rome)  and  Peter,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  a  man  of  apos- 
tolic sanctity,  accept.  According  to  the  teachings  of  the 
apostles  and  of  the  Gospel  we  believe  in  one  Godhead  of 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;  the  blessed  Trinity 
alike  in  majesty. 

We  ordain  that  the  name  of  Catholic  Christians  shall 
apply  to  all  those  who  obey  this  present  law.  All  others 
we  judge  to  be  mad  and  demented;  we  declare  them 
guilty  of  the  infamy  of  holding  heretical  doctrine ;  their 
assemblies  shall  not  receive  the  name  of  churches.  They 
shall  first  suffer  the  wrath  of  God,  then  the  punishment 
which  in  accordance  with  divine  judgment  we  shall 
inflict.* 

"  Orthodoxy  and  good  citizenship  have  thus  be- 
come identical.  One  who  failed  to  accept  the  doc- 
trine of  Bishop  Damasus,  or  suggested  that  the  three 
persons  of  the  Trinity  were  not  alike  in  majesty,  was 
not  only  to  suffer  the  wrath  of  God,  but  the  punish- 
ment which  the  Emperor  should  choose  to  inflict. 
Eight  years  before  an  edict  had  ordered  that  those 
who  taught  the  doctrines  of  Manes  should  be  heavily 
fined;  those  who  should  attend  a  meeting  of  the 

*  Codex  Theodosianus,  ed.  Haemel,  lib.  xvi,  tit.  i,  2. 


156  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

Manichseans  should  be  cast  out  from  among  their 
fellow-men  as  infamous  and  discredited.  The  houses 
or  dwelling-places  in  which  their  profane  doctrines 
were  taught  should  be  confiscated  by  the  government. 
A  later  decree  (398)  declares  that: 

Clerics  adhering  to  the  Eunomian  or  Montanist  super- 
stition shall  be  excluded  from  all  intercourse  with  any 
city  or  town.  Should  any  of  these  heretics  sojourning 
in  the  country  attempt  to  gather  the  people  together  or 
collect  an  assembly,  let  them  be  sent  into  perpetual 
exile.  .  .  . 

"We  command  that  their  books,  which  contain  the  sub- 
stance of  their  criminal  teachings,  be  sought  out  with  the 
utmost  care  and  burnt  with  fire  under  the  eyes  of  the 
magistrates.  Should  any  one  perchance  be  convicted  of 
concealing,  through  deceit  or  otherwise,  and  of  failing  to 
produce  any  work  of  this  kind,  let  him  know  that  as 
the  possessor  of  harmful  books  written  with  criminal 
intent  he  shall  suffer  capital  punishment.* 

"  The  state  not  only  intervened  to  defend  the  doc- 
trines of  the  orthodox  Church,  it  protected  and 
granted  it  privileges;  the  clergy  were  to  be  exempt 
from  taxation;  the  churches  were  to  enjoy  the  right 
of  asylum,  as  pagan  temples  had  done.  The  clergy 
were  permitted  to  try  certain  cases  in  which  their 
own  members  were  involved;  and  so  we  find  in  the 
Roman  law  the  foundations  of  the  vast  jurisdiction 
of  the  Church  and  of  the  '  benefit  of  clergy.' 

*  Codex  Theodosianus,  ed.  Haemel,  lib.  xvi,  tit.  v,  34. 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        157 

"  There  is  much  that  is  surprising  about  the  situa- 
tion during  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  Chris- 
tianity not  only  becomes  the  state  religion,  but  at 
the  same  time  it  unconsciously  prepares  itself  to  take 
the  place  of  the  state  when  that  shall  drop  away  with 
the  dissolution  of  the  Koman  Empire  in  the  West. 

"  But  having  traced  the  organisation  thus  far,  it 
would  now  be  necessary  to  return  and  consider  the 
intricate  body  of  doctrine  which  had  been  forming 
during  these  centuries,  and  which  explained  the  world 
and  its  history  in  the  light  of  Christian  theology.  The 
theologians  unconsciously  drew  their  material  from 
the  widest  range  of  sources  —  from  the  Hebraic  tra- 
dition, from  Egypt  and  Persia,  from  the  philosophies 
of  Greece.  It  would  be  very  interesting  to  gather 
together  the  results  of  modern  scholarship  upon  the 
sources  of  Christian  belief;  to  trace  the  various 
streams  from  their  confluence  in  Christianity  to  their 
rise  in  the  separate  national  traditions  and  philoso- 
phies of  many  peoples;  to  weigh  the  influence  of 
the  North  against  that  of  Greece ;  to  disentangle  the 
Egyptian  from  the  Chaldean.  But  all  that  concerns 
us  this  evening  is  to  note  that  what  became  known 
as  Christianity  was  not  at  all  the  teachings  of  Jesus, 
nor  proceeded  from  a  single  source,  but  was  first  an 
aggregate,  and  then  a  synthesis,  of  the  religious 
thought  of  the  Mediterranean.  Conceptions  origi- 
nally distinct  and  contradictory  were  moulded  into 


158  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

a  seemingly  homogeneous  mass.  The  process  of 
selection  naturally  involved  a  parallel  process  of  re- 
jection; and  it  is  sad  enough  to  see  how  much  of 
that  clarity  which  characterises  the  reasoning  in 
Cicero's  '  Nature  of  the  Gods '  or  in  Lucretius  has 
disappeared  when  we  reach  Augustine  and  Orosius. 
In  considering  this  doctrine  we  must  always  remem- 
ber that  what  we  now  look  upon  as  poetic  imagery, 
to  be  taken  figuratively  or  symbolically,  was  for 
centuries  regarded  as  literal  fact,  as  literal  as  the  most 
concrete  data  of  chemistry  or  physics  or  astronomy. 

"  Santayana,  in  his  '  Life  of  Reason/  has  given 
us  a  most  instructive  resume  of  the  philosophy  of 
history  which  the  Church  has  for  fifteen  hundred 
years  used  its  unrivalled  power  to  defend.  He  calls 
it  '  The  Christian  Epic/  a  brief  drama  of  things, 
and  I  do  not  think  I  can  do  better  than  to  read  cer- 
tain passages  therefrom,  which,  if  we  force  ourselves 
to  take  them  literally,  will  give  us  a  very  fair  notion 
of  what  actually  constitutes  the  Christian  view  of 
life. 

"  Santayana  prefaces  this  account  by  a  discussion 
of  the  human  needs  to  which  such  a  story  appeals. 
Here  he  well  says  that: 

The  brief  time  and  narrow  argument  into  which  Chris- 
tian imagination  squeezes  the  world  must  seem  to  a 
speculative  pantheist  childish  and  poor,  involving,  as  it 
does,  a  fatuous  perversion  of  nature  and  history  and  a 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW 

ridiculous  emphasis  laid  on  local  events  and  partial  in- 
terests. Yet  just  this  violent  reduction  of  things  to  a 
human  stature,  this  half-innocent,  half -arrogant  assump- 
tion that  what  is  important  for  a  man  must  control  the 
whole  universe,  is  what  made  Christian  philosophy  orig- 
inally appealing  and  what  still  arouses,  in  certain  quar- 
ters, enthusiastic  belief  in  its  beneficence  and  finality. 

"  But  let  me  turn  to  the  narrative  itself : 

There  was  in  the  beginning,  so  runs  the  Christian  story, 
a  great  celestial  King,  wise  and  good,  surrounded  by  a 
court  of  winged  musicians  and  messengers.  He  had  ex- 
isted from  all  eternity,  but  had  always  intended,  when  the 
right  moment  should  come,  to  create  temporal  beings,  im- 
perfect copies  of  himself  in  various  degrees.  These,  of 
which  man  was  the  chief,  began  their  career  in  the  year 
4004  B.  c.,  and  they  would  live  on  an  indefinite  time, 
possibly,  that  chronological  symmetry  might  not  be  vio- 
lated, until  A.  D.  4004.  The  opening  and  the  close  of  this 
drama  were  marked  by  two  magnificent  tableaux.  In  the 
first,  in  obedience  to  the  word  of  God,  sun,  moon,  and 
stars,  and  earth  with  all  her  plants  and  animals,  assumed 
their  appropriate  places,  and  nature  sprang  into  being 
with  all  her  laws.  The  first  man  was  made  out  of  clay, 
by  a  special  act  of  God,  and  the  first  woman  was  fash- 
ioned from  one  of  his  ribs,  extracted  while  he  lay  in  a 
deep  sleep.  They  were  placed  in  an  orchard  where  they 
often  could  see  God,  its  owner,  walking  in  the  cool  of 
the  evening.  He  suffered  them  to  range  at  will  and  eat 
of  all  the  fruits  he  had  planted  save  that  of  one  tree  only. 
But  they,  incited  by  a  devil,  transgressed  this  single 
prohibition,  and  were  banished  from  that  paradise  with 


160  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

a  curse  upon  their  head,  —  the  man  to  live  by  the  sweat 
of  his  brow  and  the  woman  to  bear  children  in  labour. 
These  children  possessed  from  the  moment  of  conception 
the  inordinate  natures  which  their  parents  had  acquired. 
They  were  born  to  sin  and  to  find  disorder  and  death 
everywhere  within  and  without  them. 

At  the  same  time  God,  lest  the  work  of  his  hands 
should  wholly  perish,  promised  to  redeem  in  his  good 
season  some  of  Adam's  children  and  restore  them  to  a 
natural  life.  This  redemption  was  to  come  ultimately 
through  a  descendant  of  Eve,  whose  foot  should  bruise 
the  head  of  the  serpent. 

Henceforth  there  were  two  spirits,  two  parties,  or,  as 
Saint  Augustine  called  them,  two  cities  in  the  world. 
The  city  of  Satan,  whatever  its  artifices  in  art,  war,  or 
philosophy,  was  essentially  corrupt  and  impious.  Its 
joy  was  but  a  comic  mask  and  its  beauty  the  whitening 
of  a  sepulchre.  It  stood  condemned  before  God  and  be- 
fore men's  better  conscience  by  its  vanity,  cruelty,  and 
secret  misery,  by  its  ignorance  of  all  that  it  truly  be- 
hoved a  man  to  know  who  was  destined  to  immortality. 
Lost,  as  it  seemed,  within  this  Babylon,  or  visible  only  in 
its  obscure  and  forgotten  purlieus,  lived  on  at  the  same 
time  in  the  City  of  God,  the  society  of  all  the  souls  God 
predestined  to  salvation ;  a  city  which  counted  its  myriad 
transfigured  citizens  in  heaven,  and  had  its  destinies,  like 
its  foundations,  in  eternity.  .  .  . 

All  history  was  henceforth  essentially  nothing  but  the 
conflict  between  these  two  cities;  two  moralities,  one 
natural,  the  other  supernatural;  two  philosophies,  one 
rational,  the  other  revealed ;  two  beauties,  one  corporeal, 
the  other  spiritual ;  two  glories,  one  temporal,  the  other 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        161 

eternal;  two  institutions,  one  the  world,  the  other  the 
Church.  These,  whatever  their  momentary  alliances  or 
compromises,  were  radically  opposed  and  fundamentally 
alien  to  one  another.  Their  conflict  was  to  fill  the  ages 
until,  when  wheat  and  tares  had  long  flourished  together 
and  exhausted  between  them  the  earth  for  whose  sub- 
stance they  struggled,  the  harvest  should  come;  the  ter- 
rible day  of  reckoning  when  those  who  had  believed  the 
things  of  religion  to  be  imaginary  would  behold  with 
dismay  the  Lord  visibly  coming  down  through  the  clouds 
of  heaven,  the  angels  blowing  their  alarming  trumpets, 
all  generations  of  the  dead  rising  from  their  graves,  and 
judgment  without  appeal  passed  on  every  man,  to  the 
edification  of  the  universal  company  and  his  own  un- 
speakable joy  or  confusion.  Whereupon,  the  blessed 
would  enter  eternal  bliss  with  God  their  master,  and  the 
wicked  everlasting  torments  with  the  devil  whom  they 
served.* 

"  This  is  the  philosophy  of  history  which  Chris- 
tianity offers.  Taken  out  of  its  setting  of  Biblical 
language,  and  without  the  anaesthetic  of  accustomed 
phrase,  this  is  the  historic  Christian  doctrine,  the 
explanation  of  existence  which  the  Church  not  only 
has  defended  through  the  centuries,  but  for  which  it 
claims  divine  authority,  and  which  it  has  sought  to 
impose  upon  mankind  under  penalty  of  eternal  dam- 
nation. I  would  ask  you  to  supplement  this  picture 
of  Santayana's  by  another,  a  fifth  century  '  symbol 7 
which  has  come  down  to  us  unchanged  and  is  no 

*  "The  Life  of  Reason"  by  George  Santayana,  vol.  iii,  pp. 
91-96.  H 


162  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

more  difficult  of  access  than  the  English  prayer-book. 
It  is  called  the  creed  of  St.  Athanasius.  I  shall  not 
read  it,  though  I  have  it  here.  It  is,  I  presume, 
sufficiently  familiar  to  you  all.  Historically  it  stands 
for  the  exaltation  of  mere  correctness  of  formula; 
salvation  by  correct  opinion  in  metaphysical  abstrac- 
tions. Such  doctrine  finds,  of  course,  no  support  in 
the  teachings  of  Jesus,  to  whom  all  theological  subtle- 
ties were  alien.  The  sin  of  confounding  the  persons 
and  dividing  the  substance,  of  mistaking  one  un- 
created and  one  incomprehensible  for  three  uncre- 
ateds  and  three  incomprehensibles  was  unknown  to 
him.  He  surely  never  would  have  recognised  the 
description  of  himself  which  the  creed  offers.  One 
paragraph  alone  would  he  have  understood  — '  and 
they  that  have  done  good  shall  go  into  life  everlast- 
ing; and  they  that  have  done  evil  into  everlasting 
fire.'  But  what  we  should  especially  remember  is, 
first,  that  this  creed  is  one  of  the  most  characteristic 
products  of  the  Catholic  Church,  which  was  eagerly 
seized  upon  by  the  English  Protestants  and  made  the 
basis  of  good  citizenship  in  the  eyes  of  the  state,  as 
it  had  been  made  the  basis  of  salvation  in  the  world 
to  come.  '  Furthermore,  it  is  necessary  to  everlast- 
ing salvation  that  he  also  believe  rightly  .  .  .'  And, 
secondly,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  this  body  of 
metaphysical  dogma  is  not  treated  as  a  relic  of  a 
bygone  age,  left,  reverently  perhaps,  at  one  side  by 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        163 

a  living,  growing  Church,  but  is  to-day  the  official 
creed,  required  to  be  said  by  clergy  and  congregation 
alike  in  the  English  Church,  and  there  placed  as  the 
measure  of  human  faith  and  religious  thought,  as  the 
Nicene  and  Apostles  creed  are  in  America.  If  to- 
day we  interpret  them  symbolically  rather  than  liter- 
ally, it  is  through  no  permission  of  the  Church,  but 
in  the  face  of  its  most  bitter  protests. 

"  But  I  must  return  to  my  outline.  After  tracing 
the  origin  of  the  Church  as  an  institution,  and  the 
alliance  between  it  and  the  state,  after  studying  its 
theory  of  mankind  and  the  universe  and  its  inter- 
pretation of  the  past,  it  would  be  necessary  before 
leaving  this  earlier  period  to  speak  of  monasticism, 
which  stood  as  a  sort  of  monitor  warning  the  Church 
against  exclusive  reliance  upon  administrative  ability, 
political  sagacity,  and  theology.  In  the  West  the 
contradictions  between  asceticism  on  the  one  hand 
and  salvation  through  conformity  and  routine  on  the 
other  were  scarcely  perceived.  It  is  difficult  to  see 
why  the  monks  sought  personal  hardship  and  suffered 
self-imposed  penances  when  salvation  was  assured  to 
them  on  easier  terms.  Monasticism  was,  perhaps,  an 
instinctive  protest  against  the  supposed  adequacy  of 
mere  correct  belief  and  mere  membership  in  the 
organisation.  The  secular  clergy  never,  as  I  re- 
member, protested  against  the  monks  on  general 
principles.  Indeed,  as  has  often  been  pointed  out, 


164  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

the  celibacy  of  the  clergy  was  a  distinct  concession 
to  monasticism. 

"  In  judging  the  role  of  monasticism  in  the  de- 
velopment of  Europe,  much  would  need  to  be  said 
of  the  monasteries  as  occasional  homes  of  culture 
superior  to  those  which  prevailed  elsewhere,  and  of 
the  activity  of  the  monks,  as  teachers,  as  well  as  their 
economic  role,  which  has  been  emphasised  by  Cun- 
ningham. We  would  have  to  deal  also  with  that  doc- 
trine of  St.  Augustine,  which  identifies  original  sin 
with  the  attraction  between  the  sexes,  and  which  was 
made  the  basis  of  monasticism.  This  ungodlike,  mis- 
leading, and  devilish  passion  was  put  forward  as  the 
origin  of  all  sin  from  the  fall  of  Adam  to  the  end  of 
the  world.  The  monk  was  engaged  in  getting  woman 
out  of  his  establishment  and  off  his  mind,  so  she 
naturally  became  for  him  the  devil's  chosen  instru- 
ment to  lead  him  from  the  straight  and  narrow 
path.  As  Luther  complained,  the  natural  instincts 
underlying  the  family  were  viewed  as  something 
distinctly  inferior,  if  not  downright  unholy.  The 
influence  of  such  teachings  in  degrading  the  rela- 
tions between  men  and  women  must  be  obvious  to 
us  all. 

"  After  dealing  with  monasticism,  which  in  its 
origin  belongs  to  the  fourth  century,  that  is,  to  the 
very  time  when  those  edicts  in  the  Theodosian  code 
of  which  we  have  been  speaking  were  issued,  it  would 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        165 

be  necessary  to  take  up  the  transition  of  the  Church 
from  its  dependence  on  the  still  somewhat  vigorous 
government  of  the  Roman  Empire  to  its  practical 
supremacy  in  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries, 
when  feudalism  constituted  the  only  pretence  of  gov- 
ernment which  western  Europe  enjoyed.  There  is 
a  growing  conviction  among  scholars  that  it  is  safest, 
on  the  whole,  to  view  the  mediaeval  Church  as  a 
state.  As  Maitland  has  very  well  said,  the  Church 
was  organised  like  a  state ;  it  had  its  own  law,  its 
own  courts,  its  own  prisons;  it  collected  its  own 
taxes  and  possessed  an  elaborate  financial  and  ad- 
ministrative system.  If  one  were  not  born  into  the 
Church,  as  he  was  into  the  state,  he  was  baptised  into 
it  before  he  could  help  himself;  and  everyone  was 
assumed  to  belong  to  the  Church  in  much  the  same 
way  that  we  now  assume  that  everyone  belongs  to  the 
state.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church,  then,  was  really 
the  successor  to  the  Roman  Empire,  and  may  be 
defined  as  an  international  and  super-national  state, 
imposed  upon  feudalised  western  Europe.  The  Pope 
not  only  claimed  to  be  the  over-lord  of  the  Kings  and 
even  of  the  Emperors,  but  he  was  able  to  substantiate 
his  claims  in  theory  and  not  infrequently  in  practice. 
The  Church  was  of  divine  origin,  whereas  the  civil 
government  was,  after  all,  the  invention  of  evil  men 
instigated  by  the  devil.  This  was  well  set  forth  by 
Gregory  VII  in  a  letter  to  Bishop  Herman  of  Metz  in 


166  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

1081,  apropos  of  the  excommunication  of  Henry  IV. 
Let  me  read  you  an  extract  from  it : 

Shall  not  an  office  instituted  by  laymen  —  by  those 
even  who  did  not  know  God  —  be  subject  to  that  office 
which  the  providence  of  God  Almighty  has  instituted 
for  his  own  honour  and  in  compassion  given  to  the 
world  ?  ...  Do  we  not  all  know  that  Kings  and  princes 
are  descendants  of  men  who  were  ignorant  of  God,  and 
who  by  arrogance,  robbery,  perfidy,  murder,  —  in  a  word, 
by  almost  every  crime,  at  the  prompting  of  the  prince 
of  this  world,  the  Devil,  —  strove  with  blind  avarice  and 
intolerable  presumption  to  gain  a  mastery  over  their 
equals  —  that  is,  over  mankind.  .  .  . 

Furthermore,  every  Christian  King,  when  he  comes  to 
die,  seeks  as  a  poor  suppliant  the  aid  of  a  priest,  that  he 
may  escape  hell's  prison,  may  pass  from  the  darkness 
into  the  light,  and  at  the  judgment  of  God  may  appear 
absolved  from  the  bondage  of  his  sins.  Who,  in  his  last 
hour,  whether  layman  or  priest,  has  ever  implored  the 
aid  of  an  earthly  King  for  the  salvation  of  his  soul  ?  And 
what  King  or  Emperor  is  able,  by  reason  of  the  office  he 
holds,  to  rescue  a  Christian  from  the  power  of  the  devil 
through  holy  baptism,  to  number  him  among  the  sons 
of  God,  and  to  fortify  him  with  the  divine  unction? 
Who  of  them  can  by  his  own  words  make  the  body  and 
blood  of  our  Lord  —  the  greatest  act  in  the  Christian 
religion?  Or  who  of  them  possesses  the  power  of  bind- 
ing and  loosing  in  heaven  and  on  earth?  From  all  of 
these  considerations  it  is  clear  how  greatly  the  priestly 
office  excels  in  power.  .  .  . 

Who,  therefore,  of  even  moderate  understanding,  can 
hesitate  to  give  priests  the  precedence  over  Kings  ?  Then, 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        167 

if  Kings  are  to  be  judged  by  priests  for  their  sins,  by 
whom  should  they  be  judged  with  better  right  than  by 
the  Koman  pontiff?* 

"  The  development  of  the  Church  into  a  state  in- 
evitably affected  the  attitude  of  the  clergy  toward 
their  functions.  Their  acts  were  no  longer  personal 
and  spiritual,  but  official  and  necessary,  authoritative 
without  regard  to  the  subjective  condition  of  the  par- 
ticular officer  who  performed  them  in  the  name  of 
the  mighty  organisation  of  which  he  was  the  agent. 
A  demoralised  clergy  could  now  take  refuge  behind 
the  doctrine  of  '  the  efficacy  of  the  sacraments  in  pol- 
luted hands.'  This  was  never  more  insolently  and 
instructively  set  forth  than  in  an  almost  forgotten 
reply  of  a  certain  worthy  Pilchdorf  to  the  cavillings 
of  the  Waldensian  heretics  in  the  middle  of  the  fif- 
teenth century. 

Since  the  sin  of  adultery  does  not  take  from  a  King 
the  royal  dignity,  if  otherwise  he  is  a  good  prince  who 
righteously  executes  justice  in  the  earth,  so  neither  can 
it  take  the  sacerdotal  dignity  from  the  priest,  if  other- 
wise he  performs  the  sacraments  rightly  and  preaches 
the  word  of  God.  Who  doubts  that  a  licentious  King  is 
more  noble  than  a  chaste  Knight,  although  not  more 
holy  ?  —  No  one  can  doubt  that  Nathaniel  was  more  holy 
than  Judas  Iscariot;  nevertheless  Judas  was  more  noble 

*  "Contra  illos  qui  stulte  dicunt  imperatorem  excommunicari 
non  posse  a  Romano  pontifice. "  (Gregorius  VII,  Registrum,  lib. 
viii,  no.  21.) 


168  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

on  account  of  the  apostleship  of  the  Lord,  to  which  Judas 
and  not  Nathaniel  was  called. 

But  thou,  heretic,  wilt  sa}^ :  "  Christ  said  to  his  dis- 
ciples, <  Eeceive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whosesoever  sins  ye 
remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them ' ;  therefore  the  priest 
who  does  not  receive  the  Holy  Ghost  because  he  is  wicked 
cannot  absolve."  Even  if  a  wicked  priest  has  neither 
charity  nor  the  Holy  Ghost  as  a  private  man,  neverthe- 
less his  priesthood  is  worthy  as  far  as  efficacy  of  the 
sacraments  goes,  though  he  himself  may  be  unworthy  of 
the  priesthood.  .  .  . 

For  example,  a  red  rose  is  equally  red  in  the  hands 
of  an  emperor  or  of  a  dirty  old  woman;  likewise  a  car- 
buncle in  the  hand  of  a  King  or  of  a  peasant;  and  my 
servant  cleans  the  stable  just  as  well  with  a  rusty  iron 
hoe  as  with  a  golden  one  adorned  with  gems.  No  one 
doubts  that  in  the  time  of  Elijah  there  were  many  swans 
in  the  world,  but  the  Lord  did  not  feed  the  prophet 
by  swans,  but  by  a  black  raven.  It  might  have  been 
pleasanter  for  him  to  have  had  a  swan,  but  he  was  just 
as  well  fed  by  a  raven.  And  though  it  may  be  pleasanter 
to  drink  nectar  from  a  golden  goblet  than  from  an 
earthen  vessel,  the  draught  intoxicates  just  the  same, 
wherever  it  comes  from.* 

"  This  reasoning  is  exactly  similar  to  that  which 
would  be  used  to-day  in  case  one  should  appeal  from 
the  decision  of  a  judge  on  the  ground  of  his  private 
immorality.  The  Church  was  forced  into  exactly 
the  same  position  that  the  state  is;  that  is,  that  the 

*  Pilchdorffius,  Contra  Waldenses,  xvi-xvii,  in  Maxima  bib- 
liotheca  patrum  (1677),  xxv,  281  sqq. 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW       169 

acts  of  an  official  are  valid  whether  lie  be  a  saint  or 
a  sinner.  To  the  earlier  doctrines  of  the  inerrancy 
of  the  Church's  views  of  God  and  man  and  the  world, 
and  the  necessity  of  membership  in  the  organisation 
if  one  would  be  saved,  was  now  added  the  necessity 
of  accepting  de  fide  the  Papal  monarchy,  which  in- 
cluded in  practice  its  elaborate  judicial  and  finan- 
cial system. 

"  The  new  era  begins  with  the  development  of 
the  national  states,  Aragon,  England,  France,  and 
the  inevitable  conflict  between  the  ever  strengthen- 
ing secular  government  and  the  international  eccle- 
siastical government.  The  troubles  fell  into  four 
main  categories :  First,  how  far  was  the  King  really 
subject  to  the  Pope;  secondly,  how  far  could  he  tax 
the  vast  possessions  of  the  clergy;  thirdly,  what 
classes  of  cases  should  be  judged  by  the  Church 
courts  (especially,  how  extensive  should  be  the  appel- 
late jurisdiction  of  the  great  central  court  of  Chris- 
tendom at  Rome)  ;  lastly,  how  should  the  patronage 
in  the  Church  be  apportioned  between  the  head  of 
the  national  state  and  the  head  of  the  international 
state. 

"  It  is-  impossible  here  to  do  more  than  hint  at 
the  problem  which  has  faced  Europe  in  the  last  five 
hundred  years  of  outgrowing  this  most  tremendous 
institution  of  the  Middle  Ages.  It  is  not  hard  to  see 
why  the  Church  was  ultra-conservative,  was  bitterly 


170  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

opposed  to  all  progress,  whether  in  the  realm  of 
thought  or  in  the  social  order.  Just  as  Burke, 
shocked  by  the  course  of  the  French  Revolution, 
argued  that  nothing  could  be  more  dangerous  than 
to  examine  the  principles  upon  which  the  state  rested, 
so  the  Church  opposed  any  re-consideration  of  its 
claims.  It  showed  a  fatal  sensitiveness  to  the  dangers 
of  scientific  inquiry  and  political  philosophy.  It 
knew  that  it  owed  its  power  to  an  extraordinary  set 
of  circumstances,  no  one  of  which  could  be  spared. 

"  In  judging  the  attitude  of  the  Church  we  cannot 
too  often  recollect  what  has  commonly  been  the  atti- 
tude of  the  state,  for,  after  all,  heresy  in  the  Church 
is  exactly  parallel  to  treason  in  the  state.  It  would 
have  seemed  as  preposterous  to  Innocent  III  to  have 
conceded  that  the  Albigenses  had  a  right  to  establish 
an  independent  religious  community  as  it  would  to 
the  justices  of  our  Supreme  Court  if  they  were  asked 
to-day  to  sanction  a  monarchy  by  the  Grace  of  God, 
which  some  of  us  wished  to  found  as  an  illustration 
of  the  inherent  right  of  man  to  live  under  such 
government  as  he  chooses. 

"  The  powerful  forces  of  conservatism,  which  were 
the  inevitable  outcome  of  the  extraordinary  system 
which  we  have  been  describing,  suffered  little  change 
when  the  Protestant  revolt  came.  The  '  Reforma- 
tion '  may  be  described  as  nine-tenths  conservatism 
and  one-tenth  reaction.  To  Luther,  Melanchthon, 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        171 

and  Calvin  the  suggestions  of  Copernicus  seemed 
silly  and  wicked.  While  Luther  was  not  hostile  to 
social  reform,  the  Church  furnished  him  with  a  de- 
ficient set  of  canons  of  expediency  and  inexpediency ; 
for  example,  the  moderate  demands  of  the  peasants 
in  the  revolt  in  Germany  in  1524-25  greatly  irri- 
tated him.  Serfdom  and  slavery  had  existed  from 
the  first,  and  appeared  to  be  divinely  sanctioned. 
Should  the  peasants  be  granted  their  freedom,  this 
would  make  '  God  a  liar.'  The  freedom  of  the  body 
was  in  any  case  unimportant,  since  we  should  seek 
for  true  freedom  in  the  spirit.  In  his  reply  to 
the  peasants  Luther  makes  the  following  judicious 
reflections : 

There  should  be  no  serfs,  because  Christ  has  freed  us 
all !  What  is  that  we  hear  ?  That  is  to  make  Christian 
freedom  wholly  bodily.  Did  not  Abraham  and  the  other 
patriarchs  and  prophets  have  serfs  ?  Eead  what  St.  Paul 
says  of  servants,  who  in  all  times  have  been  serfs.  So 
this  article  is  straight  against  the  gospel,  and  moreover 
it  is  robbery ;  since  each  man  would  take  his  person  from 
his  lord  to  whom  it  belongs.  A  serf  can  be  a  good  Chris- 
tian and  enjoy  Christian  liberty,  just  as  a  prisoner  or  a 
sick  man  may  be  a  Christian  although  he  is  not  free. 
This  article  would  make  all  men  equal  and  convert  the 
spiritual  kingdom  of  Christ  into  an  external  worldly 
one;  but  that  is  impossible,  for  a  worldly  realm  cannot 
stand  where  there  is  no  equality;  some  must  be  free, 
others  bond;  some  rulers,  others  subjects.  ...  If  you 


172  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

will  not  follow  this  advice  which  God  would  approve, 
I  must  leave  you  to  yourselves.  But  I  am  guiltless  of 
your  souls,  your  blood,  and  your  goods.  I  have  told  you 
that  you  are  both  wrong  [that  is,  nobles  as  well  as  peas- 
ants] and  fighting  for  the  wrong:  you  nobles  are  not 
fighting  against  Christians,  for  Christians  would  not 
oppose  you,  but  suffer  all.  You  are  fighting  against 
robbers  and  blasphemers  of  Christ's  name;  those  that 
die  among  them  shall  be  eternally  damned.  But  neither 
are  the  peasants  fighting  Christians,  but  tyrants,  enemies 
of  God,  and  persecutors  of  men,  murderers  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Those  of  them  who  die  shall  also  be  eternally 
damned.  And  this  is  God's  certain  judgment  on  you 
both  —  that  I  know.  Do  now  what  you  will  so  long  as 
you  care  not  to  save  either  your  bodies  or  souls.* 

"  With  this  cheerful  and  complete  condemnation 
Luther  leaves  them  to  work  out  the  cause  of  social 
progress  as  best  they  may.  Indeed,  it  is  not  till  three 
centuries  later  that  the  very  moderate  demands  of 
the  peasants  are  accorded  them. 

"  If  the  Church  was  intolerant  of  social  change 
it  was  even  more  bitterly  opposed  to  all  growth  in 
knowledge.  The  advocates  of  the  new  were  de- 
mented, inspired  of  the  devil,  or  wilfully  perverse. 
This  supposed  necessity  of  denouncing  science  ap- 
pears very  early  in  the  Church.  Lactantius,  a  con- 
temporary of  Constantine,  makes  easy  sport  of  those 

*  "Verlegung  der  12  Artikel  nebst  dessen  Vermahnung 
beydes  an  die  Oberkeit  und  Bauerschaft."  Luther's  Werke, 
ed.  Walch,  xvi,  cols.  84  sqq. 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        173 

who  maintain  that  people  may  live  upon  another  side 
of  the  globe.    In  his  '  Divine  Institutes  '  he  says : 

How  can  there  be  any  one  so  absurd  as  to  think  that 
men  can  have  their  feet  higher  than  their  heads;  or 
that  in  those  parts  of  the  earth  instead  of  resting  on  the 
ground  things  hang  down ;  crops  and  trees  grow  down- 
ward ;  rain,  snow,  and  hail  fall  upward  on  to  the  earth  ? 
Who  indeed  can  wonder  at  the  hanging  gardens  which 
are  reckoned  as  one  of  the  seven  wonders  when  the 
philosophers  would  have  us  believe  in  hanging  fields  and 
cities,  seas,  and  mountains  ?  .  .  . 

If  you  ask  those  who  maintain  these  monstrous  notions 
why  everything  does  not  fall  off  into  the  heavens  on  that 
side,  they  reply  that  it  is  of  the  nature  of  things  that  all 
objects  having  weight  are  borne  toward  the  centre,  and 
that  everything  is  connected  with  the  centre,  like  the 
spokes  of  a  wheel ;  while  light  things,  like  clouds,  smoke, 
and  fire,  are  borne  away  from  the  centre  and  seek  the 
heavens.  I  scarce  know  what  to  say  of  such  fellows  who, 
when  once  they  have  wandered  from  truth,  persevere  in 
their  foolishness  and  defend  their  absurdities  by  new 
absurdities.  Sometimes  I  imagine  that  their  philosophis- 
ing is  all  a  joke,  or  that  they  know  the  truth  well  enough 
and  only  defend  these  lies  in  a  perverse  attempt  to 
exhibit  and  exercise  their  wit.* 

"  Leslie  Stephen,  I  believe,  has  said  that  there  is 
nothing  like  a  theological  training  to  destroy  all  in- 
tellectual diffidence.  The  Church  furnishes  an  ex- 
traordinary example  of  this,  as  one  traverses  the 

*  Divinae  Institutiones,  lib.  iii,  §24  (Corp.  SS.  Ecc.  Lat.,  xix), 
pp.  254  sqq. 


174  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

long  distance  which  separates  Lactantius  from  Pio 
Nono;  witness  the  latter's  reception  of  a  supposed 
refutation  of  Darwin's  theory  of  evolution. 

A  system  which  is  repugnant  at  once  to  history,  to  the 
traditions  of  all  peoples,  to  exact  science,  to  observed 
facts,  and  even  to  reason  herself,  would  seem  to  need  no 
refutation,  did  not  alienation  from  God  and  the  leaning 
toward  materialism  due  to  depravity  eagerly  seek  a  sup- 
port in  all  this  tissue  of  fables.  .  .  .  And,  in  fact,  pride, 
after  rejecting  the  Creator  of  all  things  and  proclaiming 
man  independent,  wishing  him  to  be  his  own  king,  his 
own  priest,  and  his  own  God,  —  pride  goes  so  far  as  to 
degrade  man  himself  to  the  level  of  the  unreasoning 
brutes,  perhaps  even  of  lifeless  matter,  thus  uncon- 
sciously confirming  the  divine  declaration,  "  When  pride 
cometh,  then  cometh  shame."  But  the  corruption  of 
this  age,  the  machinations  of  the  perverse,  the  danger 
of  the  simple,  demand  that  such  fancies,  altogether  ab- 
surd though  they  are,  should  —  since  they  borrow  the 
mask  of  science  —  be  refuted  by  true  science.* 

"  But  the  Church,  as  we  all  know,  has  by  no  means 
confined  itself  to  opposing  scientific  investigation ;  it 
has,  down  to  the  present  day,  consistently  cultivated 
superstition  and  obfuscation  in  the  supposed  interests 
of  an  ignorant  people.  Our  treatise  would  have  to 
give  a  chapter  to  this  heading,  which  should  deal 
with  miracle  working  by  saints  and  sorcery  by  devils. 
For  while  originally  the  miracles  attested  the  doc- 

*  "A  History  of  the  Warfare  of  Science  with  Theology  in 
Christendom"  by  Andrew  D.  White,  vol.  i,  p.  75. 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        175 

trine,  later  the  doctrines  attested  the  miracles.  If 
the  worker  of  wonders  was  opposed  to  the  popular 
belief,  then  were  his  miracles  proof  of  the  agency  of 
Satan.  There  would  be  no  lack  of  illustrative  mate- 
rial in  any  century,  though  perhaps  one  of  the  most 
instructive  instances  is  recorded  by  Caesar  of  Heister- 
bach  in  his  '  Dialogues.' 

Two  men,  simply  clad  but  not  without  guile,  not  sheep 
but  ravening  wolves,  came  to  Besangon,  feigning  the 
greatest  piety.  Moreover,  they  were  pale  and  thin,  they 
went  about  barefooted  and  fasted  daily,  they  did  not 
miss  a  single  morning  the  matins  in  the  cathedral,  nor 
did  they  accept  anything  from  anyone  except  a  little 
food.  When  by  this  hypocrisy  they  had  attracted  the 
attention  of  every  one,  they  began  to  vomit  forth  their 
hidden  poison  and  to  preach  to  the  ignorant  new  and 
unheard-of  heresies.  In  order,  moreover,  that  the  people 
might  believe  their  teachings,  they  ordered  meal  to  be 
sifted  on  the  sidewalk  and  walked  on  it  without  leaving 
a  trace  of  a  footprint.  Likewise,  walking  upon  the 
water,  they  did  not  sink ;  also  they  had  little  huts  burned 
over  their  heads,  and  after  the  huts  had  been  burned  to 
ashes,  they  came  out  uninjured.  After  this  they  said  to 
the  people,  "  If  you  do  not  believe  our  words,  believe  our 
miracles/' 

The  bishop  and  the  clergy,  hearing  of  this,  were  greatly 
disturbed.  And  when  they  wished  to  resist  the  men, 
affirming  that  they  were  heretics  and  deceivers  and  min- 
isters of  the  devil,  they  escaped  with  difficulty  from  being 
stoned  by  the  people.  Now  that  bishop  was  a  good  and 
learned  man,  and  a  native  of  our  province.  Our  aged 


176  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

monk,  Conrad,  who  told  me  these  facts  and  who  was  in 
that  city  at  the  time,  knew  him  well. 

The  bishop,  seeing  that  his  words  were  of  no  avail  and 
that  the  people  intrusted  to  his  charge  were  being  seduced 
from  the  faith  by  the  devil's  agents,  summoned  a  certain 
clerk  that  he  knew,  who  was  very  well  versed  in  necro- 
mancy, and  said :  "  Certain  men  in  my  city  are  doing  so 
and  so.  I  ask  you  to  find  out  from  the  devil,  by  your 
art,  who  they  are,  whence  they  come,  and  by  what 
means  they  work  so  many  and  such  wonderful  miracles. 
For  it  is  impossible  that  they  should  do  wonders  through 
divine  inspiration  when  their  teaching  is  so  contrary  to 
that  of  God."  The  clerk  said:  "My  lord,  I  have  long 
ago  renounced  that  art."  The  bishop  replied :  "  You  see 
clearly  in  what  straits  I  am.  I  must  either  acquiesce  in 
their  teachings  or  be  stoned  by  the  people.  Therefore 
I  enjoin  you,  for  the  remission  of  your  sins,  that  you 
obey  me  in  this  matter." 

The  clerk,  obeying  the  bishop,  summoned  the  devil, 
and  when  asked  why  he  had  called  him,  responded :  "  I 
am  sorry  that  I  have  deserted  you.  And  because  I  desire 
to  be  more  obedient  in  the  future  than  in  the  past,  I  ask 
you  to  tell  me  who  these  men  are,  what  they  teach,  and 
by  what  means  they  work  so  great  miracles."  The  devil 
replied,  "  They  are  mine  and  sent  by  me,  and  they  preach 
what  I  have  placed  in  their  mouths."  The  clerk  re- 
sponded, "  How  is  it  that  they  cannot  be  injured,  or  sunk 
in  the  water,  or  burned  by  fire  ?  "  The  demon  replied 
again,  "They  have  under  their  armpits,  sewed  between 
the  skin  and  the  flesh,  my  compacts,  in  which  homage 
done  by  them  to  me  is  written;  and  it  is  by  virtue  of 
these  that  they  work  such  miracles  and  cannot  be  in- 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW       177 

jured  by  anyone."  Then  the  clerk  said,,  "  What  if  these 
should  be  taken  away  from  them  ?  "  The  devil  replied, 
"  Then  they  would  be  weak,  just  like  other  men."  The 
clerk  having  heard  this,  thanked  the  demon,  saying, 
"  Now  go,  and  when  you  are  summoned  by  me,  return." 

He  then  went  to  the  bishop  and  related  these  things 
to  him  in  due  order.  The  latter,  filled  with  great  joy, 
summoned  all  the  people  of  the  city  to  a  suitable  place 
and  said:  "I  am  your  shepherd,  ye  are  my  sheep.  If 
those  men,  as  you  say,  confirm  their  teaching  by  signs, 
I  will  follow  them  with  you.  If  not,  it  is  fitting  that 
they  should  be  punished  and  that  you  should  penitently 
return  to  the  faith  of  your  fathers  with  me."  The  people 
replied,  "We  have  seen  many  signs  from  them."  The 
bishop  said,  "  But  I  have  not  seen  them." 

Why  prolong  my  tale?  The  plan  pleased  the  people. 
The  heretics  were  summoned.  The  bishop  was  present. 
A  fire  was  kindled  in  the  midst  of  the  city.  However, 
before  the  heretics  entered  it,  they  were  secretly  sum- 
moned to  the  bishop.  He  said  to  them,  "  I  want  to  see 
if  you  have  anything  evil  about  you."  Hearing  this, 
they  stripped  quickly  and  said  with  great  confidence, 
"  Search  our  bodies  and  our  garments  carefully."  The 
soldiers,  however,  following  the  instructions  of  the 
bishop,  raised  the  men's  arms,  and  noticing  under  the 
armpits  some  scars  that  were  healed  up,  cut  them  open 
with  their  knives  and  extracted  from  them  little  scrolls 
which  had  been  sewed  in. 

Having  received  these,  the  bishop  went  forth  with  the 
heretics  to  the  people  and,  having  commanded  silence, 
cried  out  in  a  loud  voice,  "  Now  shall  your  prophets  enter 
the  fire,  and  if  they  are  not  injured,  I  will  believe  in 

12 


178  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

them/'  The  wretched  men  trembled  and  said,  "  We  are 
not  able  to  enter  now."  Then  the  bishop  told  the  people 
of  the  evil  which  had  been  detected,  and  showed  the  com- 
pacts. Then  all  were  furious  and  hurled  the  devil's 
ministers  into  the  fire  which  had  been  prepared,  to  be 
tortured  with  the  devil  in  eternal  flames.  And  thus, 
through  the  grace  of  God  and  the  zeal  of  the  bishop,  the 
growing  heresy  was  extinguished,  and  the  people  who 
had  been  seduced  and  corrupted  cleansed  by  penance.* 

"  In  travelling  through  France  last  summer  and 
visiting  Lourdes  and  Toulouse  I  was  struck  with  the 
reluctance  of  the  Church  to  let  a  single  false  idea  go 
by  the  board.  At  Toulouse,  where  the  Church  of 
St.  Sernin  claims  to  have  as  large  and  potent  a  col- 
lection of  relics  as  exist  in  the  world,  including  the 
bodies  of  four  apostles,  I  believe,  and  numberless 
martyrs  who  suffered  under  Diocletian  and  through 
the  violence  of  the  Vandals,  here  new  tablets  have 
been  prepared  which  give  with  scientific  precision 
the  length  of  the  saint's  bone  in  centimetres,  suggest 
the  malady  for  which  prayers  to  the  saint  are  pecul- 
iarly efficacious,  and  finally  reassure  doubters  by 
means  of  a  certificate  of  authenticity.  The  theolog- 
ical spirit  is  the  same  as  it  has  always  been. 

"  The  inquisition  I  pass  over.  Though  we  hear 
much  talk  about  it  in  Protestant  circles,  it  was  only 

*  Caesar  of  Heisterbach,  Dialogus  Miraculorum,  dist.  v,  c.  18, 
vol.  i,  269  sqq ;  trans,  by  Munro  in  "  Translations  and  Reprints," 
vol.  ii,  no.  4. 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW       179 

a  fairly  efficient  piece  of  machinery  for  stamping  out 
heresy  and  enforcing  the  policies  we  have  already 
discussed.  Its  cruelty  is  too  well  known  to  require 
comment. 

"  The  chapter  on  superstition  would  bring  our 
outline  down  to  the  present  day.  We  would  have 
touched  upon  the  personal  teachings  of  Jesus,  and 
the  thought  of  the  times  in  which  he  lived.  We 
would  have  seen  that  he  could  not  have  contemplated 
what  Christianity  so  soon  became  —  a  matter  of  or- 
ganisation and  of  doctrine.  We  would  have  traced 
the  building  of  this  organisation  and  its  gradual 
growth  and  amalgamation  with  the  Roman  Empire, 
till,  in  the  downfall  of  the  latter,  the  Church  re- 
mained its  successor  as  a  super-national  state.  Par- 
allel with  this  we  would  have  examined  the  sources 
of  the  Christian  doctrine,  watched  the  intermingling 
of  their  streams  of  influence,  their  conflict,  and  final 
crystallisation  despite  their  heterogeneousness.  We 
would  have  seen  how  these  two  factors  of  organisa- 
tion and  doctrine,  with  which  Jesus  had  nothing 
whatever  to  do,  replaced  the  personal  teaching  of 
Christ,  and  became  the  chief  if  not  the  sole  means 
of  salvation;  and  we  would  have  come  to  under- 
stand the  reasons  why  the  Church  clings  so  to  super- 
stition, and  is  so  stubbornly  resistful  of  all  progress, 
so  ultra-conservative  and  reactionary. 

"  All  these  things  and  many  more  would  have  to 


180  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

be  considered  in  forming  an  estimate  of  the  role 
which  organised  Christianity  has  played.  Many, 
doubtless,  feel  that  they  must  defend  the  Church  on 
the  ground  that  Jesus  was  responsible  for  it.  This, 
as  I  have  repeatedly  said,  seems  to  me  a  mistake.  I 
think  he  can  be  completely  exonerated  from  the  many 
evils  for  which  the  Church  has  so  consistently  stood. 
The  Christian  Church  did  not  owe  its  organisation 
to  Jesus,  and  no  one  would  have  been  more  disap- 
pointed than  He  at  the  results  of  doctrines  attributed 
to  Him.  The  great  advantages  and  disadvantages  of 
monasticism,  and  the  wonderful  role  of  the  Church 
as  a  political  institution,  are,  of  course,  very  difficult 
to  estimate.  Such  culture  and  such  order  as  existed 
from  the  break-up  of  the  Roman  Empire  in  the  West 
until  the  thirteenth  century  is  certainly  largely  at- 
tributable to  the  Church;  but  from  that  time  on, 
with  the  development  of  the  state  and  with  the  de- 
velopment of  science,  the  Church  grows  to  be  more 
and  more  a  grievous  anomaly. 

"  The  final  chapter  of  our  work  would  be  the  most 
difficult  of  all  to  write  or  to  treat  in  any  adequate 
fashion.  '  What  are  we  to  do  about  it  ? '  is  the  ques- 
tion that  would  there  have  to  receive  consideration. 
We  would  have  to  turn  from  looking  back  to  looking 
forward.  I  believe  myself  that  we  would  have  to 
seek  a  solution  along  two  broad  lines.  The  first  con- 
sists in  the  denationalising  of  the  Church.  That 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        181 

which  was  first  against  the  state,  became  next  im- 
perial, then  international,  and  then  national.  The 
Protestants  were,  as  I  have  pointed  out,  extremely 
conservative;  they  could  not  conceive  of  a  church  as 
separated  from  the  state,  but  they  could  conceive  of 
a  national  as  over  against  an  international  church. 
The  Protestant  principle  was  Cujus  regio  ejus  religio. 
Certainly,  as  the  Church  has  become  national,  it  has 
lost  many  of  the  disadvantageous  features  of  the 
mediaeval  international  church.  But  still  more  is 
necessary,  and  with  the  coming  of  the  Separatists 
and  Independents  in  England  we  have  a  new  theory, 
—  that  of  voluntary  religious  association,  —  which 
has  been  worked  out  with  wonderful  results  in  our 
own  history;  for  churches  with  us  are,  of  course, 
nothing  more  than  religious  clubs.  What  is  taking 
place  here  is  also  taking  place  in  France,  and  is,  I 
believe,  of  vital  moment  to  every  nation,  and  above 
all  to  religion  itself.  When  religion  has  ceased  to 
have  any  association  with  politics,  and  has  divorced 
itself  from  the  social  order,  it  will  become  a  purely 
.personal  matter,  as  it  seems  to  me  that  it  should  be. 
"  For  the  second  line  of  advance  I  think  we  must 
foster  science.  It  is  upon  science  we  must  rely  for 
the  removal  of  crude  superstition,  for  the  breaking 
down  of  the  barriers  of  ignorance  and  narrow  preju- 
dice, and  for  the  lessening  of  man's  superlative  con- 
ceit. If  we  can  do  these  two  things,  then  I  think 


182  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

there  is  hope  that  religion  may  cease  to  be  an  impedi- 
ment to  social  and  scientific  progress,  and  that  its 
benefits,  as  its  solaces,  may  be  obtainable  at  less  cost 
to  the  individual  and  the  race. 

"  I  fear  I  have  talked  too  long,  and  in  a  rather 
desultory  fashion.  I  know  there  is  nothing  particu- 
larly new  or  unfamiliar  in  the  facts  I  have  presented. 
Yet,  in  such  discussions  as  we  are  conducting,  these 
facts  cannot  be  neglected.  I  have,  therefore,  wanted 
to  put  them  before  you  in  sequence,  that  some  sort 
of  connected  notion  of  them  might  be  reached.  Frag- 
mentary and  one-sided  as  such  a  sketch  must  be,  it 
is  instructive;  and  it  was  scarcely  possible  to  say 
what  I  wished  in  briefer  compass.'7 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  feel,  Professor  B — , 
that  we  have  all  to  thank  you  very  heartily.  I 
suppose,  as  you  say,  most  of  us  were  at  one  time  or 
another  acquainted  with  the  main  facts  of  this  his- 
tory, but  it  must  be  an  unusual  achievement  to  have 
made  such  an  extensive  outline  so  graphic.  More- 
over, the  object  of  these  meetings  is  to  re-examine 
familiar  facts,  if  possible,  from  new  standpoints,  in 
the  hope  that  thus  their  very  familiarity  may  cease 
to  blind  us  to  their  significance.  Here,  therefore,  is 
the  problem  you  have  set  us:  What  is  the  signifi- 
cance of  this  record  ?  The  facts  themselves  cannot  be 
disputed,  but  how  are  they  to  be  interpreted  ?  What 
elements  here  pertain  properly  to  religion?  WThat 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW       183 

to  raw  human  nature  ?  You  have  shown  us  failure, 
superstition,  narrow  dogmatism,  bigotry,  and  cruelty. 
You  have  dwelt  upon  the  substitution  of  the  letter 
for  the  spirit,  and  of  temporal  power  for  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  Is  this  sad  record,  then,  properly  a  reli- 
gious document  ?  Or  is  it  a  psychological  document, 
revealing  the  action  of  ignorance,  intolerance,  and 
self-seeking,  as  would  the  history  of  any  organisation 
whatsoever  ?  If  we  were  to  trace  the  history  of  gov- 
ernment, or  of  the  very  principles  of  consolidation 
and  organisation  themselves,  would  we  find  a  differ- 
ent record  ?  These  are  some  of  the  questions  your 
account  must  raise,  and  which  I  trust  we  may  con- 
sider. For  my  own  part  I  would,  at  the  beginning, 
attempt  to  defend  the  view  that  these  '  crimes  com- 
mitted in  the  name  of  Christ '  are  properly  ascrib- 
able  neither  to  religion  nor  to  organisation  as  a 
principle,  but  rather  to  those  promptings  and  pas- 
sions of  human  nature  with  which  the  religious  spirit 
must  contend,  and  which  have  from  time  to  time 
dominated  the  church  organisation  as  they  have  all 
other  human  institutions." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  That  does  not  tell  us  very 
much,  does  it?  And  another  trouble  is  that  the 
Church  is  entirely  unwilling  to  be  regarded  as  a 
human  institution." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  It  may  be  that  the  word 
'  church  '  is  used  in  two  senses.  That  of  which  you 


184  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

have  traced  the  history  is  plainly  very  human,  in- 
deed, and  whether  it  is  willing  or  not  we  shall  have 
to  recognise  it  as  such." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  I  was,  of  course,  speaking  of 
Christianity  as  an  historic  fact,  as  the  Church  of 
history." 

THE  PRAGMATIST  :  "  That  is  the  trouble  with  dis- 
cussions on  religion.  We  never  know  whether  we 
are  supposed  to  discuss  religion  as  it  is,  or  as  it 
ought  to  be." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  It  does  not  seem  to  me 
that  that  is  the  trouble  here.  I  think  we  have  arrived 
at  a  fair  notion  of  the  religious  attitude  and  spirit, 
but  in  the  history  of  the  Church  we  find  this  spirit 
seldom  animating,  or  rather,  seldom  governing,  the 
external  organisation.  Its  place  was  usurped  by 
superstition  on  the  one  side,  self-seeking  on  the  other. 
Now,  in  order  for  religion,  or  anything  else,  to  be 
effective  in  the  world  some  type  of  organisation  is 
obviously  necessary.  The  quest  —  " 

THE  PKAGMATIST  :  "  Pardon  me,  Professor  A — , 
but  why  should  organisation  be  necessary  to  religion 
any  more  than  to  poetry  ?  " 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Surely  even  poetry  needs 
organisation.  A  poem  becomes  effective  only  as  it 
is  known.  To  make  it  known  there  is  need  of  or- 
ganisation, —  of  the  publisher  and  bookseller,  and  of 
what  is,  in  fact,  a  very  complicated  mechanism," 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        185 

THE  PRAGMATIST  :  "  Your  argument  is  more  in- 
genious than  sound.  Publishers  are  somewhat  more 
recent  than  poetry." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  But  is  it  not  really  ob- 
vious that  for  the  dissemination,  and  even  for  the 
preservation,  of  any  idea,  or  force,  or  method,  or- 
ganisation is  necessary?  Long  before  the  days  of 
publishers  poetry  still  had  its  external  organisation 
in  the  bards  and  minstrels,  save  for  which  the  early 
songs  and  sagas  would  never  have  come  down  to  us. 
The  more  I  think  of  it,  the  more  poetry  seems  to  me 
the  epitome  of  organisation,  the  most  highly  and 
rigidly  organised  of  all  forms  of  expression,  its 
value  depending  no  less  upon  the  perfection  of  its 
form  than  upon  the  truth  of  its  meaning.  I  do  not 
think  we  can  seriously  discuss  the  value  of  organisa- 
tion; but  that  the  question  is  rather  how  to  retain 
its  effectiveness  while  eliminating  its  evils.  The 
record  the  Historian  has  traced  for  us  brings  this 
problem  clearly  into  view,  and  should,  I  think,  help 
us  toward  a  solution;  for  it  should  enable  us  to 
analyse  the  forces  operative. 

"  Chief  among  these,  I  believe,  is  the  tendency  to 
look  for  support  to  the  visible  rather  than  the  in- 
visible; the  tendency  toward  materialisation,  which 
causes  us  so  readily  to  substitute  adherence  to  the 
letter  for  obedience  to  the  spirit.  Jesus  said :  e  He 
that  loveth  me  not  keepeth  not  my  sayings.'  But, 


186  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

as  the  Historian  points  out,  those  who  came  later  re- 
placed this  love  by  formal  acceptance  of  a  creed,  and 
obedience  by  membership  in  an  organisation.  It 
seems  we  have  here  something  more  fundamental 
than  the  common  failing  of  losing  sight  of  our  ends 
in  dwelling  on  the  means.  This  last  is  undoubtedly 
accountable  for  much  —  though  we  would  not  con- 
clude therefrom  that  we  should  have  no  means 
whereby  to  attain  ends.  But  here  I  think  we  have 
the  action  of  something  far  more  universal.  I  mean 
the  action  of  fear.  Is  not  this  at  the  basis  of  the 
f ormalisation  and  the  indoctrinisation  of  religion  ? 
We  are  afraid  in  the  presence  of  existence ;  like  chil- 
dren waking  from  nightmare,  we  long  for  something 
tangible,  something  visible,  something  we  can  lay 
hold  of.  For  when  fear  comes,  then  faith  is  shaken 
and  the  inner  sight  obscured.  Therefore  it  is  that 
we  seek  external  supports  to  which  we  may  cling. 
We  are  afraid  to  trust  ourselves  naked  to  the  law; 
to  the  words  of  the  Master  we  remember,  but  no 
longer  hear;  to  a  love  which  seems  to  sleep  blind  to 
our  peril.  It  seems  to  me  that,  if  we  had  faith, 
creeds  would  be  unnecessary;  and  that  the  first 
requisite  in  freeing  organisation  from  its  evils  is  to 
have  the  courage  to  recognise  it  as  an  instrument,  a 
means,  not  an  end,  something  we  use  to  make  religion 
effective,  not  something  we  cling  to  for  our  own 
miserable  salvation. 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        187 

"  Is  not  the  history  of  the  Church,  when  viewed 
in  this  light,  the  history  of  a  struggle  between  reli- 
gion and  these  elements  of  our  nature  which  are 
essentially  cowardly  and  self-seeking  ?  I  would  much 
like  to  hear  what  the  Historian  would  say  to  this." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  I  could  only  repeat  what  I  have 
already  said,  that  I  am  speaking  solely  of  the  historic 
Church,  the  historic  institution.  I  would  entirely 
agree  with  you  that  this  has  very  little  to  do  with 
what  we  would  like  to  consider  religion." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  fear  I  have  been  talk- 
ing very  vaguely  and  loosely  if  I  have  given  the 
impression  that  I  believe  the  Church  has  little  to  do 
with  religion.  I  would  hold,  on  the  contrary,  that 
the  spirit  of  Christ  has  never  wholly  departed  from 
the  Church  that  professes  his  name;  but  that  too 
often  this  spirit  has  been  left  to  flower  in  obscurity, 
while  the  high  places  and  government  have  been 
usurped  by  cowardice  and  self-seeking.  It  is  the  old 
story  of  the  money-changers  in  the  temple.  It  is 
always  they  who  sit  at  the  entrance  and  who  make 
the  noise.  The  real  worshipper  is  quiet,  and  we  pass 
him  by  unnoticed  —  until  we  are  in  sorrow  or  in 
trouble.  Yet  genuine  piety  rarely  fails  to  leave  its 
record,  and  I  suspect  this  is  to  be  traced  in  un- 
broken descent  within  the  Church  itself;  a  thread 
of  gold  running  through  the  sombre  pattern  we  have 
seen;  or  a  fire,  ever  present  though  unnoticed,  till 


188  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

from  time  to  time  it  blazes  out  in  great  conflagrations 
of  reform. 

"  It  is,  of  course,  impossible  to  consider  all  sides 
of  a  question  at  once,  yet  I  think  we  should  bear  in 
mind  that  there  is  this  other  side  to  the  Church's 
record  —  not  so  obvious,  perhaps,  but  nevertheless 
there.  Was  it  not  the  Editor  who  spoke  of  this  at 
our  last  meeting,  wishing  such  a  history  would  be 
written  —  the  history  of  the  Illuminati,  of  the  Church 
within  the  Church?  I  probably  have  not  his  words 
correctly,  but  was  not  this  his  thought  ? " 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  The  '  Church  Invisible '  was  the 
term  I  used ;  and  it  seems  to  me  to  stand  for  a  very 
real  and  potent  thing,  perhaps,  if  we  could  see  a 
little  more  deeply,  the  most  potent  thing  in  human 
history.  Yet  I  confess  I  have  not  the  habit  of  asso- 
ciating this  very  closely  with  what  the  Historian 
would  call  the  Church.  It  has  rarely  been  on  good 
terms  with  the  authorities  or  the  organisation.  Nor, 
indeed,  do  I  often  think  of  the  Church  when  I  con- 
sider the  teachings  of  Jesus.  It  is  more  of  an  in- 
stinctive and  temperamental  disregard  than  a  matter 
of  reasoning,  for  I  quite  agree  with  the  Mathemati- 
cian that  there  is  every  evidence  of  the  continuous 
presence  of  spiritual  illumination  within  the  historic 
body." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Why  will  you  not  trace 
for  us  this  other  history?  I  know  you  have  been 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        189 

reading  along  these  lines  for  years,  and  you  could 
give  us  another  side  of  the  Church's  record." 

THE  EDITOE  :  "  I  have  not  the  Historian's  power 
of  summary.  I  have,  it  is  true?  been  much  interested 
in  tracing  the  flow  of  mystic  thought  through  the 
centuries,  and  noting  its  recrudescence  in  the  last 
quarter  of  each.  Springing  up  apparently  spontane- 
ously, sometimes  in  one  country,  sometimes  in  an- 
other, it  varies  in  minor  details  and  in  expression, 
but  in  essence  it  is  always  the  same.  This  is  what 
I  referred  to  as  the  Church  Invisible,  the  succession 
of  Illuminati.  But  it  cannot  be  called  peculiarly 
Christian,  for  it  has  existed  among  all  peoples  and 
in  all  ages.  Jesus  revived  this  teaching;  he  did 
not  originate  it.  Indeed,  St.  Augustine  himself  so 
says,  for  he  tells  us  that  what  he  knew  as  Chris- 
tianity had  existed  from  all  time,  and  was  but  given 
that  name  when  revived  by  Jesus. 

"  In  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century  the  chief  mys- 
tical movement  was  among  the  Spanish  Jews,  where 
also  was  the  greatest  culture  and  learning  of  the  age. 
It  was  largely  through  them  that  Arabic  and  Greek 
and  Oriental  thought  were  disseminated  through  the 
West,  and  I  do  not  think  any  one  can  read  '  The 
Duties  of  the  Heart/  by  Rabbi  Bachye,  without  being 
impressed  by  its  breadth,  its  wisdom,  and  its  pene- 
tration, as  well  as  by  its  genuine  religion. 

"  But  in  the  twelfth  century  we  find  it  in  Chris- 


190  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

tian  guise  —  in  the  teachings  of  Peter  Waldo  and 
the  Cathari.  In  the  thirteenth  there  were  the  Breth- 
ren of  the  Free  Spirit,  or  the  Beghards;  while  in 
the  fourteenth  we  find  Tauler,  and  Nicholas  of  Basle, 
and  the  Friends  of  God ;  as  well  as  Thomas  a  Kempis 
and  Suso  and  the  German  mystics.  The  end  of  the 
fifteenth  century  saw,  of  course,  the  unrest  preceding 
the  Reformation,  and  the  movement  is  somewhat 
harder  to  recognise;  but  there  was  a  Chancellor  of 
the  University  of  Paris,  Gerson  by  name,  who  seems 
to  have  led  a  genuine  mystical  revival  which,  I  sus- 
pect, affected  the  Reformation  more  than  is  generally 
believed.  In  the  sixteenth  we  again  return  to  Spain, 
but  now  among  the  Christians,  not  the  Jews.  Here 
were  Alcantara,  St.  Teresa,  and  John  of  the  Cross. 
The  end  of  the  seventeenth  century  gives  us  Molinos, 
and  Madame  Guyon  and  the  Quietists,  as  well  as 
Fenelon.  The  eighteenth  is  the  prelude  to  the  French 
Revolution;  but  there  in  France  we  find  St.  Martin 
and  St.  German  and  the  recrudescence  of  mystic 
Masonry ;  and  in  the  north,  Swedenborg  —  though 
he  has  always  seemed  to  me  more  psychic  than  mystic. 
And  finally,  there  was  the  revival  of  Eastern  Mys- 
ticism, which  we  ourselves  have  witnessed  in  the  last 
quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century,  largely  resulting 
from  the  work  of  the  Theosophical  Society,  and  the 
translation  of  so  many  of  the  Oriental  Scriptures. 
"  Plainly  much  of  this  was  outside  the  Christian 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        191 

Church,  and  almost  always  opposed  by  it,  being 
sooner  or  later  persecuted  as  heretical.  The  suc- 
ceeding organisations,  each  of  which  for  a  while  ex- 
emplified and  carried  on  the  movement,  seem  soon 
to  have  degenerated,  where  they  did  not  immediately 
disintegrate  on  the  death  of  their  founder.  But  the 
spirit  of  these  movements  and  their  teachings  have 
endured  unchanged  —  the  same  to-day  as  when  Jesus 
taught,  nineteen  hundred  years  ago.  That  is  to  me 
the  true  Church,  this  moving  spirit  and  those  who 
embody  it ;  but,  as  I  said,  I  do  not  often  associate  it 
with  the  external  organisations.  One  gets  tired  using 
the  word  '  Church '  in  a  different  sense  from  those 
who  would  appear  to  have  the  best  right  to  determine 
its  meaning.  Remember  also  that  by  birth  and  edu- 
cation I  am  a  member  of  the  Society  of  Friends." 

THE  PRAGMATIST  :  "You  lean  then  toward  my  view 
that  religion  has  nothing  to  do  with  organisation  ? " 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  Not  at  all,  though  I  do  not  my- 
self care  for  forms  and  ceremony,  organisation  seems 
to  me  essential,  though  it  must  be  kept  fluidic.  I 
know  how  useful  the  Friends  have  made  theirs." 

THE  YOUTH  :  "  There  is  a  difference  between  find- 
ing a  thing  useful  and  finding  it  necessary.  Opiates 
are  useful,  but  if  depended  upon  they  do  more  harm 
than  good.  Buddhism  does  not  require  organisation. 
Why  should  Christianity  ?  " 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  It  is  a  mistake  to  consider  Bud- 


192  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

dhism  unorganised.  Its  organisation  is  plastic,  but 
very  real.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  can  liken  the  Church 
to  a  casket,  much  kicked  about  and  ill-used  because 
often  in  the  custody  of  those  who  did  not  know  its 
secret ;  itself  broken  and  defaced,  but  still  preserving 
intact  the  scroll  of  the  law.  It  is  the  Church  that 
has  preserved  the  teaching  of  the  Kingdom,  even 
where  it  did  not  understand  that  teaching,  and  it  is 
thus  to  the  Church  that  we  owe  our  knowledge  of  it 
to-day,  just  as  to  the  Brahmins  we  owe  the  record  of 
the  mystery  teaching  of  the  Rajputs." 

THE  PKAGMATIST  :  "  Does  this  mean  more  than 
the  preservation  of  the  written  texts  ? " 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  Yes,  I  think  so.  All  our  Scrip- 
tures come  to  us  through  a  priestly  cast,  to  whom,  as 
you  say,  we  owe  the  continued  existence  of  texts. 
But  with  these  texts  there  is  handed  down  a  body 
of  tradition  and  interpretation  —  often  at  fault,  often 
mistaken  and  misleading,  but  again  precious  beyond 
all  words,  the  garnered  fruit  of  ages  of  spiritual  ex- 
perience and  aspiration.  The  value  of  such  a  body 
of  testimony,  confirming  and  elucidating  the  original 
teaching,  is  priceless,  if  we  use  it  rightly.  I  mean 
as  a  guide  to  our  daily  living,  not  as  something  to 
which  we  turn  our  eyes  in  distant  intermittent  rev- 
erence, sterile  and  fruitless.  I  remember  a  very  short 
and  pithy  description  from  the  Katha  Upanishad: 
'  The  son  of  Brig  took  and  did/  That  is  what  we 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        193 

need  to  do  with  our  religion.  We  need  to  take  and 
do.  That  also  seems  to  me  the  lesson  taught  by  the 
lives  of  the  mystics  to  whom  the  Editor  referred.  In 
each  case  the  emphasis  was  upon  the  will  —  upon 
living  rather  than  professing." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHEE  :  "  Is  not  that  the  ex- 
planation of  the  whole  history  of  the  Church  ?  The 
confusion  between  life  and  a  theory  of  life  —  the  be- 
lief that  Belief  brings  salvation?  If  we  grant  this, 
does  not  all  the  rest  follow  as  a  matter  of  course  ? " 

THE  BANKER  :  "  That  is  my  view.  We  need  to 
preach  salvation  by  works." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  Whatever  be  its  explanation, 
it  is  a  most  disappointing  record,  —  a  terrible  record 
to  call  religious." 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  I  quite  agree  with  you.  And  the 
more  closely  we  study  it  the  more  terrible  it  is." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  Do  you  not  think  so  also,  Mr. 
F — ?  Do  you  not  think  that  Christianity  has  been 
very  disappointing  ? " 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  From  what  point  of  view  ? " 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  From  any  point  of  view ;  as 
an  effort  to  better  man.  Do  you  not  think  that  it  is 
all  very  disappointing?  When  you  consider  what  it 
cost?" 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  Disappointing,  perhaps,  to 
Jesus;  but  surely  we  cannot  call  it  so.  Look  at 
what  it  has  done.  Your  outline  is  so  extensive  it  is 

13 


194  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

misleading.  You  have  had  to  leave  out  of  account 
entirely  what  must  be  the  most  essential  element  in 
judging  of  any  religious  movement.  This  is  the 
effect  it  has  had  upon  the  religious-minded  man. 
Here  is  the  actual  history  of  religion,  written  from 
generation  to  generation  in  the  lives  of  its  worship- 
pers. The  mediaeval  Pope,  thundering  anathemas,  is 
not  making  the  history  of  religion,  but  the  history  of 
war.  The  great  current  of  religious  evolution  flows 
by,  as  careless  of  his  denunciations  as  he  is  ignorant 
of  its  mighty  stream. 

"  Consider  the  life  of  the  religious  man  before  the 
coming  of  Christianity.  Go  back  to  the  Greek  civ- 
ilisation, to  its  wonderful  philosophy,  its  art  and  its 
poetry  —  but  also  its  unutterable  vices.  Consider 
Sophocles,  the  poet,  next  to  Shakespeare,  who  gives 
me  the  greatest  inspiration  and  pleasure,  and  con- 
sider his  life.  Think  of  those  nameless  vices  of 
Athens,  not  as  practised  by  the  depraved  and  out- 
cast, but  put  forward  as  the  proper  delights  of  the 
philosopher,  and  of  the  poet,  of  those  who  stood  for 
the  highest  religious  life  of  a  people.  Such  a  picture 
fills  one  with  amazement,  so  far  have  we  grown  away 
from  it.  The  thought  of  these  practices  now  excites 
only  loathing  and  disgust,  and  our  whole  civilisation 
unites  in  outlawing  the  rare  degenerates  who  have 
been  guilty  of  them.  It  took  Christianity  a  thou- 
sand years  to  stamp  this  out,  but  it  has  done  it. 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW         195 

Whatever  else  we  have  gained,  religion  and  debauch- 
ery have  been  forever  dissociated. 

"  Consider  the  facts.  Look  at  human  nature  as  it 
is  and  as  it  was.  So  far  from  being  disappointing, 
I  believe  that,  could  we  reconstruct  the  conditions 
in  which  Jesus  taught,  measure  and  analyse  the  forces 
of  that  time  and  people,  see  them  all  as  they  were, 
not  as  now  we  fancy  them,  why,  then  I  believe  we 
could  calculate  with  mathematical  precision  the  whole 
course  of  Christianity.  So  many  years  of  persecu- 
tion, so  many  centuries  of  temporal  power,  so  long 
a  period  of  superstition  and  authority,  so  much 
metaphysical  theology,  so  much  subtle  logic  on  mis- 
conceived premises,  —  all  these  could  have  been  fore- 
told. All  the  horrors  of  the  inquisition,  all  the 
retaliation  of  the  reformers,  all  the  abuse  of  power 
and  degradation  of  high  office,  all  these,  too,  could, 
I  believe,  have  been  foreseen;  the  working  out  and 
purging  of  the  race  from  its  poison. 

"  The  effect  of  Christianity  upon  the  world  might 
be  considered  almost  as  the  mechanical  problem  of 
the  resultant  of  forces  —  presenting  inevitable  con- 
flicts and  the  appearance  and  temporary  domination 
of  all  sorts  of  anti-Christian  factors. 

"  Why  will  not  you  scientists  who  preach  the  con- 
servation of  energy  apply  it?  Why  will  you  not  see 
that  the  forces  acting  in  men's  minds  and  hearts  must 
work  outward  to  their  inevitable  conclusion.  I  can 


196  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

conceive  of  Jesus  waiting  through  the  centuries  till 
this  should  have  been  accomplished,  waiting  and 
working  for  its  accomplishment.  And  I  can  even 
believe  that,  whatever  the  human  brain  may  have 
thought,  the  great  Soul  within  foresaw  all  this  from 
the  beginning  —  foresaw  the  ages  of  misunderstand- 
ing before  His  mission  would  be  fulfilled,  before  His 
spirit  of  love  and  of  service  would  dwell  universally 
in  the  hearts  of  those  who  profess  Him,  before  He 
could  '  come  again/  no  longer,  perhaps,  as  a  man 
among  men,  but  as  the  Spirit  of  Man  itself,  animat- 
ing and  uplifting  the  race  to  knowledge  of  its  Divine 
Sonship." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  Do  you  really  think  our  im- 
provement due  to  Christianity?  I  most  willingly 
grant  the  world  to  be  better  than  it  was,  but  I  can 
see  no  evidence  that  this  has  been  brought  about  by 
our  religion,  which  appears  in  history  always  as  re- 
actionary. I  have  talked  to-night  to  no  purpose  if 
that  is  not  clear.  The  new  thing,  morally,  in  our  age 
is  the  feeling  of  brotherhood,  of  unity,  of  responsi- 
bility for  the  welfare  of  others  —  other  classes  and 
even  other  nations.  This,  I  think,  we  have  developed 
to  a  degree  never  before  known  in  the  world.  To 
the  Greek  and  the  Koman,  as  to  the  Mediaeval  Euro- 
pean, the  masses  beneath  him  were  scarcely  human 
—  their  happiness,  their  lives  even,  of  no  consequence 
whatever.  But  the  change  from  this  does  not  seem 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        197 

to  me  due  to  religion,  but  to  democracy  and  science ; 
to  both  of  which  the  Church  has  always  been  directly 
opposed,  and  which  require  for  their  true  develop- 
ment a  tolerance  of  individual  view  that  the  Church 
has  never  to  this  day  adopted.  Indeed,  from  the 
record,  could  we  not  say  that  humanity  had  bettered 
religion,  rather  than  religion  humanity  ? 

"  Does  it  not,  for  example,  seem  strange  to  you, 
as  well  as  disappointing,  that  Christianity,  adopted 
by  Rome,  should  so  immediately  have  transformed 
a  tolerant  community  into  an  intolerant  one  ?  " 

THE  CLERGYMAN :  "I  doubt  if  Rome  was  ever 
tolerant  in  our  sense  of  the  word  —  or  as  toleration 
implies  spiritual  brotherhood.  Religious  toleration 
under  the  Roman  Empire  was,  to  a  large  extent, 
an  instrument  of  diplomacy,  by  which  the  gods  of 
conquered  peoples,  and  their  worshippers,  might  be 
rendered  favourable  to  imperial  dominion.  The 
pantheon  was  little  more  a  symbol  of  religious  toler- 
ance than  were  Rome's  foreign  legions  symbolic  of 
brotherhood  or  political  equality.  When  was  Rome 
really  tolerant  ?  Under  Nero  ?  " 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  Nero's  persecution  was  not  from 
intolerance,  or  not  from  any  other  intolerance  than 
that  of  the  Christians  themselves.  It  was  political. 
Indeed,  it  was  anti-semitic.  I  think  they  got  the 
Christians  mixed  up  with  the  Jews.  But  I  must 
not  speak  positively,  for  really  we  are  entirely  unin- 


198  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

formed  as  to  the  actual  conditions  of  the  alleged 
persecutions." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  The  Historian  has  started 
two  trains  of  thought  at  once,  and  I  would  like  to 
see  each  followed  further.  The  first  is  the  growth 
among  men  of  what  must  be  recognised  as  a  moral 
and  religious  spirit  —  the  spirit  of  brotherhood  — 
though,  the  Historian  holds,  religion  did  little  or 
nothing  to  foster  it.  Now  to  this  seeming  paradox 
I  hope  we  may  later  return,  so  in  passing  I  would 
only  suggest  that  its  resolution  may  lie  in  distin- 
guishing between  the  two  uses  of  the  word  i  religion.' 
On  the  one  hand  we  identify  it  with  a  spiritual 
force  moving  in  the  race.  On  the  other  we  confuse 
it  with  an  external  organisation  ruled  by,  and,  in- 
deed, composed  of,  very  imperfect  human  minds  and 
hearts.  All  forms,  all  organisations,  all  habits  tend 
to  conservatism;  tend  to  remain  unchanged  while 
the  causes  which  prompted  them  alter.  Life  is  con- 
tinually outgrowing  its  clothes,  and,  in  religious  mat- 
ters, particularly,  we  confuse  the  clothes  with  the 
wearer.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  Historian's  picture 
tends  rather  to  support  than  to  deny  the  Clergyman's 
concept  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  waiting  and  work- 
ing ceaselessly  through  the  hearts  of  men,  broadening 
them  year  by  year,  lifting  them  from  their  narrow 
misconceptions,  compelling  brotherhood.  Or,  as  the 
Oxonian  put  it,  if  I  remember  correctly,  '  the  doc- 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW       199 

trine  of  the  Holy  Ghost  approves  itself  as  essentially 
true  in  experience.'  Something  has  bettered  us. 
Something  has  made  us  more  religious,  brought  us 
nearer  to  the  spirit  of  Jesus  and  an  understanding 
of  His  message.  Whatever  this  force  may  be,  it  is 
surely  a  religious  force,  '  whose  end  is  righteousness  ' ; 
working,  truly,  through  science  and  through  politics ; 
through,  I  believe,  every  department  of  life;  but 
for  this  fact  the  more,  rather  than  the  less,  genuinely 
religious ;  genuinely  of  the  essence  of  that  for  whose 
service  the  Church  exists. 

"  The  second  line  of  thought  concerns  this  ques- 
tion of  intolerance,  so  foreign  to  Christ,  so  often 
and  so  cruelly  exemplified  in  the  history  of  Chris- 
tianity. Indeed,  intolerance  and  fanaticism  seem 
more  marked  in  Christianity  than  in  any  other  reli- 
gion, save,  possibly,  Mohammedanism.  The  linking 
of  these  two  religions  in  such  a  connection  suggests 
that  a  further  explanation,  beyond  that  mentioned 
by  the  Historian,  might  be  found  in  the  peculiar 
type  of  monotheism  they  represent,  —  or,  perhaps 
more  truly,  in  a  misunderstanding  of  monotheism. 
That  is  an  idea  I  should  like  to  put  forward  for 
consideration." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  What  do  you  mean  ?  " 
THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  This.     So  long  as  a  reli- 
gion is  frankly  polytheistic  a  broad  tolerance  is  easy. 
In  a  galaxy  of  gods  it  is  easy  to  find  place  for  one 


200  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

more.  Perhaps  you  had  not  heard  of  him.  He  is 
not  one  of  your  gods.  But  he  may,  nevertheless,  be 
a  very  worthy  and  powerful  deity.  The  religions  of 
primitive  civilisations,  where  communities  were  iso- 
lated and  life  very  little  unified,  were  essentially  of 
this  polytheistic  type.  From  polytheism  to  monothe- 
ism and  monism  there  are  two  paths.  The  first  con- 
sists in  the  recognition  that  behind  diversity  of  form 
there  is  a  oneness  of  essence,  that  all  these  gods  are, 
as  it  were,  but  aspects  of  a  supreme  hidden  Deity; 
that  in  worshipping  them  one  is  really  worshipping 
Him  or  It.  This  path  consists,  in  short,  of  the  recog- 
nition of  the  One  behind  the  many,  and  to  those  who 
follow  this  path  tolerance  is  also  easy.  It  is,  indeed, 
the  very  essence  of  their  creed.  They  would  not 
wish  to  change  any  man's  religious  system.  They 
would  only  seek  to  make  him  go  more  deeply  into 
it.  For  the  unity  lies  within. 

"  The  other  way  is  the  way  of  conquest,  and  is 
well  illustrated  by  Hebrew  theology.  The  Jehovah 
of  the  Jews  was  never,  in  popular  conception,  the 
One  behind  the  many,  but  was  one  among  many. 
'  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  which  hath  brought  thce 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bond- 
age. Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me.  Thou 
shalt  not  bow  down  thyself  to  them  nor  serve  them; 
for  I  the  Lord  thy  God  am  a  jealous  God/  This 
frankly  recognises  the  existence  of  many  other  gods. 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        201 

The  scheme  of  things  is  polytheistic,  but  the  people 
of  Israel  are  to  cleave  to  one  only;  and  he  is  in- 
tensely jealous  and  egotistic.  Monotheism  consists 
here  in  maintaining  allegiance  to  him,  in  magnify- 
ing him  above  others,  in  fighting  for  him  against 
others.  Such  monotheism  is  anything  but  monism 
(I  think  a  moment  ago  I  linked  the  two  together), 
and  its  dualism  is,  as  an  ultimate  condition,  only 
tolerable  as  the  dualism  between  the  victor  and  the 
vanquished,  in  which  we  are  the  victors  rejoicing  in 
heaven  while  our  enemies  are  consumed  in  hell. 
Such  a  conception  of  the  Deity  is  totally  repugnant 
to  our  modern  view,  yet  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
it  was  the  belief  of  the  Hebrews  and  long  coloured 
Christian  thought. 

"  I  remember  when  this  theory  of  religious  in- 
tolerance (though  I  do  not  suppose  it  is  particularly 
original)  first  occurred  to  me,  I  was  studying  that 
most  remarkable  period  in  Egyptian  history  when 
Ikhnaton,  or  Amenhotep  IV,  as  he  is  more  commonly 
called,  attempted  to  replace  the  popular  polytheism 
by  the  esoteric  monism  and  pantheism  which  were 
the  religious  tradition  of  the  Royal  House  and 
Priests.  I  have  never  been  sure  whether  Ikhnaton 
himself  misconceived  this  monism,  or  whether  the 
misunderstanding  existed  only  among  his  followers, 
but  certain  it  is  that  the  people  were  not  ready  for 
it,  and  saw  in  the  teaching  of  unity  and  the  symbol 


202  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

of  the  sun  only  a  new  deity  unwilling  to  share  his 
honours  with  the  ancient  hierarchy. 

"  Despite  Ikhnaton's  iteration  and  reiteration  the 
esoteric  doctrine  remained  esoteric  —  hidden  from  all 
but  the  few  who  had  the  ability  to  understand.  It  is 
a  pathetic  picture  this  young  king  makes.  Idealistic, 
eager,  full  of  the  sense  of  the  greatness  of  his  mes- 
sage and  his  gift  to  his  people,  he  finds  this  gift  first 
misunderstood  and  then  rejected.  The  Priests  turn 
against  him:  and  for  the  first  time  in  history  there 
is  religious  war  and  persecution  for  religion's  sake. 
For  a  time  he  wins,  but  later  is  driven  from  his 
ancient  capital  and  his  throne.  In  the  new  city  he 
created  he  is  little  better  than  a  prisoner  —  the  forms 
of  royalty  are  left  him,  but  his  power  is  gone.  The 
dream  of  monism  passes  and  polytheism,  so  easily 
pictured,  lending  itself  so  readily  to  the  intelligences 
of  the  learned  and  the  ignorant  alike,  resumes  its 
sway. 

"  I  fear  I  have  wandered  from  my  point,  as  this 
theme  always  holds  my  imagination.  But  it  seems 
both  interesting  and  instructive  to  notice  that  the 
absolute  monism  of  Buddhism  and  the  frank  poly- 
theism of  Ancient  Egypt  were  alike  tolerant.  It  is 
only  misunderstanding  that  makes  intolerance;  and 
misunderstanding  of  unity  at  that.  I  believe,  by  the 
way,  that  Ikhnaton's  date  was  not  more  than  a  cen- 
tury before  Moses,  and  there  have  been  many  efforts 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW       203 

to  trace  the  latter's  teaching  to  this  source.  Certainly 
there  is  the  same  type  of  misunderstood  monism,  re- 
sulting in  the  same  intolerance." 

THE  BANKER  :  "  Another  factor,  and  fully  as  im- 
portant a  one,  in  my  judgment,  was  pointed  out  by 
the  Social  Philosopher  a  bit  ago,  but  was  not  then 
taken  up,  as  the  talk  swung  into  other  channels.  Did 
any  religion  other  than  Christianity  have  the  belief 
of  Salvation  by  Faith?  By  what  you  believed  and 
professed?  If  not,  then  one  would  expect  Christi- 
anity to  be  the  most  intolerant.  Such  a  creed  is  an 
entirely  adequate  reason  for  bigotry.  More,  it  de- 
mands bigotry  of  every  right-minded  person.  If  your 
neighbour  is  only  to  be  saved  by  believing,  then  it 
becomes  both  right  and  your  duty  to  make  him  be- 
lieve. If  you  literally  believed  in  the  alternative  of 
an  eternity  of  torment,  do  you  think  you  would  hesi- 
tate at  torture  ?  No  more  than  a  doctor  amputating 
a  poisoned  toe,  in  order  that  a  life  might  be  spared. 
No,  tolerance  is  a  good  thing,  a  kindly,  pleasant 
thing,  but  there  are  plenty  of  situations  where  it  is 
out  of  place,  and  one  of  them  is  if  you  happen  to 
believe  as  the  vast  majority  of  Christians  did  believe 
in  the  Middle  Ages." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  suspect  toleration  has 
a  far  deeper  significance  than  your  words  would  sug- 
gest. To  me  it  involves  the  whole  question  of  the 
inviolability  and  sacredness  of  individuality  —  of  the 


204  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

integrity  of  the  individual  Soul.  And  this,  as  the 
Historian  indicated,  though  I  do  not  know  whether 
he  meant  it  to  be  taken  in  just  this  way,  is  a  pre- 
requisite for  brotherhood,  for  unity  with  either  man 
or  God.  True  tolerance  seems  to  me  not  a  negative 
attitude  of  indifference,  but  a  positive  recognition 
of  the  individuality  of  others,  an  attitude  which 
opens  many  sides  of  the  religious  nature." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  I  wonder  whether  a  man's  be- 
lief does  have  much  effect  upon  his  character,  whether, 
as  you  say,  a  belief  in  tolerance  would  open  the  reli- 
gious nature  and  make  one  brotherly,  or  whether  the 
reverse  process  is  not  the  case?  It  seems  mostly  a 
matter  of  temperament.  As  I  said,  some  men  seem 
to  have  religion  and  some  have  not.  Those  that  have 
believe  in  religious  things.  But  I  suspect  it  is  the 
temperament  that  makes  the  belief,  not  the  belief  the 
temperament. " 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  You  are  questioning  the  pos- 
sibility of  a  religious  belief  educating  and  moulding 
human  nature  ?  That  is  something  which  the  Church 
has  studied  pretty  thoroughly  in  connection  with  our 
missions.  It  reminds  me  of  a  little  testimony  I  col- 
lected on  my  own  account  some  years  since,  on  a 
trip  around  the  world.  As  a  boy  at  Sunday-school 
my  pennies  were  given  for  the  support  of  two  foreign 
missions,  —  the  one  among  the  Karens  in  Burmah, 
the  other  with  the  Tellagoos  in  India,  —  and  these 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW       205 

two  names  have  ever  since  typified  t  the  heathen '  to 
me,  much  as  Sir  Galahad  does  knighthood.  When 
I  was  in  Burmah  I  remembered  my  old  friends  the 
Karens,  and  asked  the  Bishop  of  Rangoon,  with 
whom  I  was  stopping,  where  they  were  and  how  they 
were.  I  am  ashamed  to  say  I  was  half  afraid  I 
would  find  they  had  vanished  with  the  fairies  and 
dragons  of  the  same  childish  epoch.  However,  they 
turned  out  to  he  real  enough  and  anything  but  myth- 
ical. Indeed,  they  had  become  shining  examples. 
For,  from  being  among  the  lowest  of  the  Burmese 
races,  apparently  from  their  nature,  they  had  be- 
come among  the  highest,  from  the  influence  of  Chris- 
tianity. The  same  experience  awaited  me  in  India 
with  the  Tellagoos.  I  came  away  cheered  and  de- 
lighted with  these  friends  of  my  youth,  and  with 
the  work  for  which  my  pennies  had  gone.  So  here 
the  practically  universal  report  of  foreign  missions 
is  substantiated.  Religious  belief  does  uplift  and 
educate. 

"  Calvinism,  which  I  hate,  seems  to  be  an  admirable 
example  of  the  same  effect.  It  does  not  seem  to 
matter  what  was  the  original  character  or  nature 
which  embraced  it.  The  resulting  type  is  the  same ; 
in  Geneva  and  Holland  and  Scotland,  or  wherever  it 
is  found." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  The  same  likeness,  flowing  from 
similarity  of  belief,  is  evident  in  the  Society  of 


206  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

Friends.  It  is  a  closer  likeness,  a  more  strongly 
marked  type,  than  that  of  nationality." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Though  I  would  quite 
agree  with  your  main  contention,  it  seems  to  me 
that  in  these  last  illustrations  the  causal  principle 
is  selective  as  well  as  formative.  The  Protestant 
reformations  and  doctrines  were  preached  broadly 
throughout  the  whole  of  Europe.  The  natures  which 
responded  to  a  given  doctrine  or  ideal  became  the 
followers  of  that  doctrine.  This  is  a  distinctly 
selective  process,  based  upon  an  inner  quality  of 
nature  —  an  inner  likeness.  Each  sect  is  to-day 
composed  either  of  worshippers  selected  in  this 
fashion,  or  of  the  descendants  of  those  thus  selected. 
I  do  not  think  we  can  disregard  this  selective  ac- 
tion and  attribute  the  similarity  of  type  solely  to 
the  formative  and  character-building  influence  of 
belief." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  Everything  is  selective  in  the 
same  sense.  Take  the  champion  weight  lifter  at  your 
University.  He  was  not  always  strong.  On  the  con- 
trary, as  a  boy  he  had  no  particular  strength.  Some- 
thing in  the  ideal  of  athletics  must  have  appealed  to 
him,  because  he  took  up  some  dumb-bells  one  day 
and  liked  the  effect.  He  practised  and  grew  strong. 
I  suppose  you  could  call  this  selective,  but  it  would 
leave  the  argument  quite  unchanged.  He  was  not 
strong  when  he  was  '  selected.' ' 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW       207 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  No.  But  neither  did  any  '  be- 
lief '  make  him  so.  He  grew  strong  because  he  exer- 
cised; because  of  the  conditions  of  his  daily  life. 
To  the  same  causes  are  due  the  betterment  of  the 
race  and  its  growth  in  brotherhood.  It  does  not 
result  from  religion,  but  from  trade ;  from  railways, 
from  steamships,  democracy,  and  science.  They  may 
seem  strange  instruments  for  inculcating  morality, 
but  they  are  effective.  And  I  confess  Christianity 
does  not  seem  to  me  to  have  been  particularly  effect- 
ive. Most  disappointing,  in  fact." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Did  not  you  yourself 
point  out  that  Christianity  has  never  had  a  chance  ? 
Faith  without  works  is  not  faith." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  That  is  the  trouble.  It  has 
not  worked." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Do  you  know  those  books 
of  Fielding  Hall's  on  Burmese  Buddhism :  '  The  Soul 
of  a  People '  and  '  The  Heart  of  Man '  ?  They  are 
charming.  I  think  it  is  in  the  first  that  he  refers 
to  the  difference  between  the  religion  of  the  Burmese 
and  the  religion  of  Europeans.  The  Burmese  believe 
theirs.  We  believe  a  rattlesnake  bite  is  poisonous, 
and  we  avoid  it.  We  say  we  believe  in  Jesus,  but 
how  many  obey  Him?  I  quite  agree  with  you  that 
it  is  our  acts  which  mould  our  characters,  but  I  am 
unwilling  to  call  any  profession  of  religion  a  real 
belief  unless  it  is  lived.  It  is  by  living  our  ideals 


208  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

that  they  uplift  us.  Let  us  try  living  Christianity 
before  we  condemn  it." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  There  you  have  the  keynote 
of  what  must  be  the  religion  of  the  future.  It  must 
be  practical,  intensely  practical.  For  myself  I  find 
I  lay  less  stress  upon  beliefs  and  more  upon  works. 
In  fact,  the  effect  of  any  belief  upon  character  is 
largely  the  result  of  the  higher  forms  of  conduct,  and 
the  new  and  nobler  deeds  that  belief  has  inspired. 
What  does  he  do?  That  is  the  question  I  always 
want  answered  of  those  I  meet,  and  it  is  the  question 
I  think  life  asks  us:  What  are  we  doing?  And  in 
the  end  it  will  be,  What  have  we  done?  Religion 
must  be  practical.  So  practical  that,  I  think  some- 
times, it  will  be  a  sort  of  spiritual  socialism. 

"  That  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  phases  of  the 
conflict  between  Church  and  state  now  going  on  in 
France.  Do  you  recall  the  incident  of  a  few  days 
ago  when  an  Archbishop  was  turned  out  of  his  palace 
to  make  room  for  a  Minister  of  Labour  ?  It  seemed 
to  me  far  more  in  consonance  with  the  acts  of  Jesus 
than  have  been  the  recent  Papal  Bulls.  One  cannot 
help  hoping  much  from  such  signs  as  these  —  and 
there  are  many  —  that  the  Roman  Church  may 
abandon  its  political  and  temporal  pretensions,  and 
that  religions  of  all  denominations  may  turn  more 
thought  and  attention  to  bettering  life  as  it  must  be 
lived  here  and  now.  After  all,  religion  is  concerned 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        209 

with  the  living,  not  with  the  dead;  and  if  the 
churches  are  to  remain  a  power  in  the  world,  they 
must  better  the  condition  of  the  living.  They  must 
be  practical." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  quite  agree  with  you 
that  the  religion  of  the  future  will  be  intensely  prac- 
tical. But  I  think  it  will  be  so  by  looking  inward 
to  a  spiritual  ideal,  which  we  seek  to  express  in  our 
lives,  rather  than  by  looking  outward  to  any  social- 
istic state  or  condition.  The  superficial  effects  may 
seem  to  be  the  same,  but  I  think  there  is  a  profound 
difference  in  the  two  attitudes.  The  first  seems  to 
me  the  religious  attitude,  centring  the  attention  upon 
spiritual  ideals  and  spiritual  law,  and  tending  to 
identify  our  life  with  these.  The  other,  however 
beneficial  it  may  appear,  is  ultimately  materialistic, 
placing  the  emphasis  upon  material  conditions  and 
magnifying  their  importance." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  I  thought  we  had 
agreed  to  hope  that  this  making  of  religion  —  as  you 
are  doing  now  —  a  mere  matter  of  ideals,  was  but 
an  eddy  in  the  main  stream  of  religious  evolution; 
and  that  we  might  find  for  religion  the  '  stone- wall ' 
type  of  reality,  as  we  looked  deeper  into  its  meaning 
and  as  its  development  progressed." 

THE  PEAGMATIST  :  "  You  beg  the  whole  question 
in  the  way  you  phrase  the  statement.  The  '  mere ' 
is  derogatory.  Religion  will  never  be  '  merely  ?  any- 

14 


£10  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

thing  to  the  religious  man,  neither  '  merely '  ideals 
nor  '  merely  ?  anything  else.  Yet  the  more  strongly 
we  feel  an  ideal,  the  more  careless  we  may  be  of 
other  evidences.  To  need  other  reality  than  this  is 
practically  a  reflection  upon  our  own  feeling." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  That  is  Santayana's 
idea  which  we  agreed  unsatisfactory  to  at  least  a 
side  of  our  nature." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  think  we  will  get  the 
stone-wall  type  of  reality  in  the  way  I  suggested :  by 
living  out  and  expressing  our  ideals  in  our  own  lives 
and  work.  Then  they  will  have  at  least  the  same 
objective  reality  that  we  have.  We  are  ourselves 
part  of  the  machinery  of  existence,  we  should  re- 
member, and  not  the  least  important  of  our  functions 
is  the  transformation  of  ideals  into  acts  and  objective 
conditions." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  Are  we  not  getting  pretty  far 
away  from  the  ordinary  meanings  of  religion?  I 
suppose  everybody's  life  is  living  out  some  ideal  — 
so  far  as  it  is  not  just  drifting  —  though  I  do  not 
suppose  we  are  particularly  conscious  of  it  always. 
But  this  is  not  necessarily  religious,  is  it?  And  it 
does  not  seem  to  require  any  particular  organisation 
such  as  the  Christian  Church." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  I,  of  course,  believe  that  reli- 
gion needs  organisation  and  always  gravitates  toward 
it.  Otherwise  I  should  not  be  in  the  Church.  In- 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        211 

deed,  so  essential  is  the  Church  to  me  that  I  cannot 
conceive  what  life  would  be  without  it.  If  any  power 
higher  than  my  own  should  ever  deprive  me  of  my 
present  position  in,  or  relation  to  the  Church,  it 
would  be  a  matter  of  the  deepest  regret  to  me.  I 
would  have  anew  to  associate  myself  with  it,  if  not 
as  minister,  then  as  layman,  as  a  mere  '  hanger  on/ 
a  '  strap  hanger/  if  no  other  connection  were  possible. 
The  satisfaction  I  find  in  the  Church,  particularly 
in  prayer,  and  prayer  within  the  Church,  is  far  too 
precious  for  me  ever  willingly  to  forego  it.  I  cannot 
believe  that  in  this  I  am  in  any  way  unique.  I  am 
confident,  rather,  that  what  I  feel  is  a  need  of  our 
human  nature,  not  always  present  in  the  conscious- 
ness, but  always  present  in  us.  And  once  its  satisfac- 
tion has  been  experienced  it  can  never  be  forgotten. 

"  This  is  a  time  in  the  world  when  of  all  times 
there  should  be  least  challenge  of  religious  organisa- 
tion, for  this  is,  par  excellence,  the  age  of  organisa- 
tion—  of  social  co-operation  and  mutual  endeavour. 
It  is  these  which  underlie  all  modern  effectiveness, 
and  they  are  as  necessary  in  our  religion  as  in  our 
civilisation.  But  in  religion  they  are  something  more 
than  instruments  of  effective  service  —  more  than 
the  mere  machinery  whereby  Christian  ideals  become 
operative  in  the  world.  Community  of  worship  can 
lift  the  consciousness  to  a  spiritual  region  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  enter  alone.  By  its  means  our  personal  limita- 


212  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

tions  are  transcended.  Our  prayer  and  aspiration, 
so  incomplete  and  broken  in  ourselves,  are  rounded 
out  and  supplemented  by  the  aspiration  of  our  fel- 
lows. Our  personal  consciousness  is  uplifted  and 
merged  into  a  wider  consciousness  which  supports  it 
—  the  consciousness  of  the  Church.  We  recognise 
the  presence  and  effect  of  such  group  consciousness 
clearly  enough  in  other  directions.  In  listening  to 
music,  for  example,  we  know  how  our  pleasure  may 
be  enhanced  by  a  sympathetic  and  appreciative  audi- 
ence, or  damped  by  a  cold  or  empty  house.  We  have 
all  experienced  the  contagion  of  fear  or  of  courage, 
of  some  emotion  or  feeling.  And  this  contagion  is 
but  a  psychological  indication  of  the  profound  truth 
of  spiritual  brotherhood  upon  which  all  community 
of  worship  rests. 

"  The  Church  is  here  —  a  fact  in  our  civilisation. 
It  ministers  to  a  need  which  is  also  a  fact,  a  fact  of 
our  nature.  The  question  which  confronts  us  is: 
How  can  we  make  the  Church  most  useful  ?  How 
can  we  take  advantage  of  past  mistakes,  learn  from 
the  past,  leave  the  weakness  behind  us,  and  push  for- 
ward with  the  good  ?  " 

THE  YOUTH:  "I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  F —  a 
question.  Was  not  Jesus  the  highest  exponent  of 
Christianity  ? " 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  You  must  know  my  answer 
to  that" 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        213 

THE  YOUTH  :  "  And,  after  Jesus,  perhaps  St. 
Francis,  and,  let  us  say,  George  Fox  ?  " 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  They  certainly  had  much  of 
Christ's  spirit." 

THE  YOUTH  :  "  Then  it  does  not  seem  to  me  that 
Christianity  gravitates  toward  organisation  (for  these, 
its  chief  exponents,  were  either  ignorant  of  the  pos- 
sibility of  organisation  or  feared  its  coming),  but, 
rather,  that  religion  gives  birth  to  organisation,  and 
tends  to  die  in  the  process." 

THE  PRAGMATIST  :  "  I  do  not  think  I  can  grant 
the  Clergyman's  contention  that  organisation  is  a 
need  of  the  religious  spirit,  or  an  assistance  in  the 
religious  life.  Surely,  if  one's  religion  could  live 
only  on  '  the  contagion  of  emotion,'  it  would  have 
but  shallow  roots.  I  do  not  wish  to  distort  the 
Clergyman's  words  —  and  I  am  sure  that  was  not 
his  meaning  —  but  I  do  not  see  what  other  good  or- 
ganisation can  do  in  religion.  As  for  the  betterment 
of  social  and  civic  conditions,  the  betterment  of  man 
himself,  I  think  the  crux  of  the  matter  is  in  B — 's 
proposed  last  chapter.  I  believe  it  is  to  be  sought 
through  the  emancipation  of  science.  Our  tene- 
ments are  better  than  they  were,  not  because  of  reli- 
gion, but  because  of  sanitary  science;  and  the  same 
is  and  will  be  true  in  the  betterment  of  other  social 
evils. 

"Religion  is  not  a  collective  thing,  but  an  indi- 


214  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

vidual  thing.  Religion  must  always  be  individual, 
always  based  upon  personal  experience  and  personal 
temperament  and  character.  Nor  can  my  religious 
experience  be  communicated  to  another,  much  less 
duplicated  by  anyone  else.  For  such  to  be  possible 
it  would  be  necessary  to  duplicate  me;  for  all  that 
is  most  essentially  myself  enters  into  and  colours 
my  religious  life.  Therefore,  I  think  organisation 
can  never  touch  the  essentials  of  religion,  but  must 
always  draw  attention  away  from  the  unique  indi- 
vidual essence  to  the  common  surface  things,  and 
thus  rob  religion  of  its  real  significance. 

"  Religion  is  to  me  an  adventure  of  faith ;  an  act 
of  the  will.  One  chooses  to  believe  in  a  power  for 
good.  One  is  not  compelled  by  external  things  to 
such  a  belief ;  but  by  one's  own  will  one  chooses  that 
attitude  toward  life.  Religion  is  thus  always  con- 
cerned with  the  present  and  the  future,  with  those 
things  which  cannot  be  organised,  both  in  ourselves 
and  in  conditions.  It  is  never  concerned  with  the 
brute  past.  The  past  is  simply  historical  —  and 
usually  more  bad  than  good.  Religion  is  not  a 
matter  of  evidence,  but  of  the  will.  It  is  an  ad- 
venture of  faith." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  It  is  a  matter  of  science  and 
common  sense,  —  of  spiritual  law  underlying  our 
natures  and  compelling  our  assent.  Over  against 
the  '  adventure  of  faith '  I  place  the  constancy  and 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW       215 

eternity  of  spiritual  law,  which  it  is  the  duty  of 
every  man  to  discover  and  obey." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Are  you  not  each  describ- 
ing a  different  part  of  the  same  Path?  It  seems  so 
to  me.  The  Clergyman's  illustration  of  the  athlete 
may  make  my  meaning  clearer.  Until  he  has  exer- 
cised regularly  he  can  have  no  certainty  —  no  logical 
proof,  at  all  events  —  that  it  will  do  him  good.  To 
make  the  initial  effort  is  thus,  as  the  Pragmatist  put 
it,  i  an  adventure  of  faith.'  It  is  after  this  has  been 
made  that  we  have  what  the  Clergyman  spoke  of, 
the  practical  experience  of  its  benefits  and  the  recog- 
nition of  the  principles  and  laws  which  underlie 
them.  Finally,  there  results  an  establishment  of  the 
bodily  system  upon  this  new  basis  of  hygiene  and  the 
exercise  of  new  powers,  rather  than  upon  the  previous 
softer  mode  of  life. 

"  This,  I  think,  is  not  a  bad  parallel  to  what  hap- 
pens to  the  man  who  endeavours  to  express  his  reli- 
gious ideals  in  his  own  life.  Is  it  not  Inge  who  de- 
fined faith  as  i  a  venture,  or  series  of  ventures,  which 
verifies  itself  as  it  advances  '  ?  The  definition  is  not 
unlike  the  Pragmatist's,  and  has  the  advantage  of 
rejecting  all  sterile  opinions,  all  beliefs  we  say  we 
hold,  but  do  not  put  into  practice.  For  anything  to 
be  a  part  of  our  real  faith  we  must  live  by  it.  It 
must  '  march/  as  Carlyle  would  say,  and  verify  itself 
in  the  advancing.  So  our  religious  life  begins  with 


216  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

the  trust  in  our  religious  ideals.  Gradually  this  trust 
grows  until  it  becomes  a  matter  of  faith  with  us. 
We  '  will '  to  believe  in  them,  as  the  Pragmatist  told 
us,  in  the  sense  that  we  will  to  act  upon  them  and 
enter  upon  the  '  adventure  of  faith.'  Then  comes  the 
verification  —  perhaps  personal  and  incommunicable, 
as  may  have  been  the  faith  it  verifies,  but  none  the 
less  unmistakable  and  convincing.  And  last  there 
comes  the  complete  re-establishment  of  our  lives  upon 
the  basis  of  our  faith,  upon  the  basis  of  our  ideals, 
which  have  been  proved  to  us  as  we  have  followed 
them.  They  become  for  us  the  law  of  our  lives,  as 
real  to  us  as  we  are  to  ourselves ;  infinitely  more  real 
than  the  world  of  '  stone- walls.' 

"  It  is  obvious  that  much  of  this  Path  is  purely 
personal  and  not  touched  by  organisation.  Yet  in 
another  part  we  can  be  greatly  helped.  This  '  ad- 
venture of  faith '  is  no  light  matter,  and  the  testi- 
mony of  those  who  have  gone  before  can  give  us 
something  to  hold  to  when  our  own  vision  is  clouded." 

THE  PRAGMATIST  :  "  I  don't  think  I  can  even  now 
agree  with  you  as  to  the  usefulness  of  organisation, 
or  even  as  to  the  possibility  of  organising  religion. 
If  it  were  not  so  shockingly  late  I  would  like  to  dis- 
cuss it  further." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  We  can  take  it  up  an- 
other evening." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  I  wish  you  would  think  over 


THE    HISTORIAN'S    VIEW        217 

the  practical  side  of  the  problem.  What  steps  can 
the  Church  take  to  make  it  more  in  harmony  with, 
and  helpful  to,  modern  life  ?  In  what  way  should 
science  and  democracy  modify  its  ideas  and  its 
organisation  ? " 


VII 
ORGANISATION  AND  RELIGION 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN :  "To  put  this  even- 
ing's subject  in  its  proper  connection  with 
what  has  preceded,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
go  back  two  meetings.  You  will  remember  that  the 
Oxonian,  being  then  requested  to  open  the  discus- 
sion, gave  us  the  choice  of  four  topics,  of  which  we 
promptly  selected  all.  He  complied  so  far  as  to 
present  three  of  them,  which  formed  a  fairly  con- 
nected sequence  of  different  aspects  of  individual 
religious  feeling.  The  fourth  topic  he  begged  to 
postpone  till  it  could  receive  more  adequate  consid- 
eration. That  was  the  Place  of  the  Church  in  the 
Present  Age.  At  the  following  meeting,  when  we 
were  unfortunately  deprived  of  the  Oxonian's  com- 
pany, the  Historian  traced  for  us  the  history  of  the 
Church  as  an  external  organisation.  Beginning  with 
the  statement  that  Christianity  derived  its  name,  but 
neither  its  teaching  nor  its  organisation,  from  Christ, 
the  first  part  of  his  thesis  was  directed  to  showing 
what  he  believed  to  be  the  origin  and  growth  of  these 
latter.  He  pointed  out  that  once  organisation  and 
doctrine  had  been  established,  membership  in  the 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION     219 

one  and  adherence  to  the  other  became  necessary  to 
salvation;  so  that  their  effect  was  to  substitute  con- 
formance  to  the  letter,  for  obedience  to  the  spirit  of 
the  law  and  the  teaching.  The  crimes  of  the  Church, 
its  superstition,  bigotry,  and  cruelty,  its  self-seeking 
and  opposition  to  all  progress,  its  political,  rather 
than  its  religious  character  through  the  Middle  Ages, 
—  all  these  were  dwelt  upon  and  illustrated  by  writ- 
ings and  records  of  mediaeval  Churchmen.  Then, 
turning  to  the  present  and  the  future,  the  Historian 
raised  the  problem  of  how  to  better  this,  and  sought 
its  solution  along  two  lines,  first  in  the  denationali- 
sation of  the  Church,  putting  it  on  a  legal  parity 
with  a  literary  or  scientific  society;  and,  second, 
in  the  removal  of  superstition  by  the  fostering  of 
science. 

"  In  thanking  the  Historian  I  pointed  out  how 
admirably  his  paper  instanced  the  very  problem  to 
which  these  meetings  owe  their  origin,  and  the  need 
of  analysing  religious  history  and  phenomena  that 
we  may  distinguish  between  the  action  therein  of 
religion  itself  and  of  those  tendencies  in  us  with 
which  the  religious  spirit  must  contend.  In  particu- 
lar, I  dwelt  upon  the  tendency  to  replace  the  spirit 
by  the  letter,  to  remove  our  attention  from  the  end 
and  fasten  it  upon  the  means,  seeing  in  this  tendency 
that  which  led  to  the  gradual  materialisation  and 
externalising  of  all  religion  and  the  danger  in  all 


220  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

organisation.  I  held,  however,  that  organisation  of 
some  sort  was  essential  to  effectiveness,  that  it  was, 
in  fact,  essential  to  the  continued  existence  of  any- 
thing at  all.  So  that  our  problem  was  how  to  pre- 
serve its  effectiveness  while  eliminating  its  evil. 

"  The  Pragmatist  disputed  this  view,  seeing  no 
reason  to  helieve  that  organisation  was  more  neces- 
sary to  religion  than  to  poetry;  to  which  I  replied 
that  it  was  necessary  to  poetry.  There  was  some 
further  talk  upon  this  point,  and  upon  the  cause  for 
the  intolerance  the  Church  so  greatly  fostered.  But, 
I  helieve,  we  all  felt  that  the  one  evening  had  not 
permitted  a  satisfactory  discussion  of  such  important 
problems.  The  Clergyman,  indeed,  made  the  direct 
appeal  that  we  should  consider  in  what  way  those 
who  work  through  organisation  should  direct  their 
efforts ;  how  we  could  profit  by  the  mistakes  of  the 
past,  and  how  make  best  use  of  past  achievements. 
These,  then,  are  the  topics  before  us  this  evening: 
What  is  the  value  of  organisation  in  religion  ?  What 
is  the  place  and  function  of  the  Church  in  the  world 
to-day?  And  from  these  I  hope  we  will  be  able  to 
pass  to  a  third:  In  what  directions  should  we  turn 
our  efforts  that  organised  religion  may  be  raised  to 
a  freer,  purer  life,  its  effectiveness  increased,  its  evils 
eliminated?  To  this  end  I  have  asked  the  Prag- 
matist to  open  the  discussion,  after  which  I  shall 
call  upon  the  Oxonian,  for,  if  I  am  right  in  my 


ORGANISATION   AND    RELIGION     221 

guess,  his  fourth  topic  should  be  complementary  to 
the  Pragmatisms  view." 

THE  PEAGMATIST  :  "  It  may  be  complementary, 
but  I  am  confident  it  will  not  be  complimentary. 
The  Oxonian  and  I  have  talked  of  these  things  be- 
fore. Indeed,  I  suspect  many  of  you  will  find  me 
too  radical. 

"  Let  me  preface  by  a  remark  which  may  seem  to 
stand  apart  from  my  proper  subject,  but  which  bears 
upon  it.  It  is  this:  Religion  is  too  often  discussed 
as  though  it  were  a  separate  and  isolated  thing,  with 
an  independent  existence  of  its  own ;  while,  in  reality, 
it  is  not  a  thing  in  itself,  but  a  relation  in  which 
things  are ;  an  attitude  which  must  be  taken  by  some 
one,  or  something,  before  it  has  meaning.  To  attempt 
to  discuss  this  relation  independently  of  that  which 
it  relates  is  to  invite  confusion.  For  the  peculiarity 
of  the  religious  relation  is  that  it  is  the  essence  of 
what  it  relates.  A  coupling  link  may  be  viewed  and 
studied  quite  independently  of  the  car  and  engine 
it  connects.  But  the  religious  relation  is  no  such 
mechanical  contrivance.  The  aspiration  of  each  man's 
heart  toward  God  contains  within  itself  all  that  is 
most  truly  that  man,  and  what  is  most  truly  God.  It 
is  meaningless  without  these.  So  religion  can  only 
be  understood  as  we  understand  man  and  as  we 
understand  God. 

"  Now,  I  cannot  pretend  to  speak  of  the  develop- 


222  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

ment  of  religion  from  an  anthropological  or  an  his- 
torical point  of  view.  I  can  speak  only  as  a  dia- 
lectician and  consider  the  various  ways  in  which  the 
word  has  been  used.  Here  I  think  we  find  three 
well-marked  epochs  or  stages  in  the  conception  of 
Deity,  or  of  that  to  which  religion  relates  man.  The 
first  stage  presents  the  primitive,  tribal  gods.  In 
this,  religion  is  not  individual  but  communal.  The 
correlate  to  which  is  that  religion  is  without  par- 
ticular significance  to  the  individual,  concerning,  in 
fact,  only  those  portions  of  his  life  where  his  wel- 
fare is  bound  up  with  the  welfare  of  his  tribe.  The 
god  is  the  god  of  the  tribe,  treating  the  tribe  as  a 
unit  and  worshipped  by  the  tribe  as  a  unit.  The 
sacrifices  are  propitiatory  for  the  entire  community, 
not  at  all  individual,  or  expressive  of  an  individual 
relation.  Whatever  relation  exists  between  you  and 
any  particular  deity  exists  because  you  are  a  mem- 
ber of  a  particular  tribe  which  has  either  pleased  or 
offended  the  deity  in  question. 

"  In  the  record  leading  us  from  primitive  Judaism 
to  early  Christianity  we  see  the  transition  from  this 
first  stage  to  the  second.  One  God  has  been  chosen 
from  many,  and  that  one  has  become  supreme.  But 
there  remains  the  old  tribal  idea,  that  your  relation 
to  the  Deity  depends  upon  your  membership  in  this 
or  that  body.  With  the  Jews  it  was  a  racial  matter ; 
the  whole  Hebrew  people  were  the  chosen  of  God. 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION     223 

With  the  early  Christians,  and  perpetuated  in  Cath- 
olicism, it  was  a  matter  of  membership  in  the  or- 
ganised Church.  This  was  the  hold  and  basis  of 
authority.  As  the  Historian  pointed  out  at  our  last 
meeting,  it  was  this  special  relation  existing  between 
the  Deity  and  the  Church  which  insured  the  salva- 
tion of  all  within  the  Church.  So  here,  as  in  the  first 
or  tribal  stage,  religion  still  lacked  the  individual 
significance  it  was  later  to  attain;  and  the  concept 
of  the  Deity  was  still  limited  and  provincial,  still 
a  God  of  one  sect  or  institution  more  than  of  another. 
"  The  most  significant  and  essential  thing  in  the 
Protestant  movement,  again  speaking  not  as  an  his- 
torian, but  as  a  dialectician,  was  the  raising  of  its 
concept  of  God  to  universality.  God  was  no  longer 
the  God  of  the  Church  alone,  or  even  of  Christendom, 
or  of  man,  or  of  the  whole  world;  but  was  actually 
cosmic  and  universal  and  absolute.  So  that  man's 
religion  became  the  relation  of  man  to  the  Absolute ; 
the  relation  of  that  which  is  most  completely  indi- 
vidual to  that  which  is  most  completely  universal. 
ISTow,  if  this  relation  is  universal,  it  can  exclude 
nothing.  It  must  exist  between  everything  in  the 
universe  and  that  universe.  It  must  exist  between 
such  a  God  and  every  man  whatever  his  condition. 
It  must  be  present  in  every  act,  every  moment,  every 
relation.  No  one  organisation  can  possibly  confine 
it  or  make  it  exclusively  its  own. 


224  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

"  It  is  curious  to  note  how  often  when  men  seek 
forcibly  to  alter  a  given  condition  they  succeed  only 
in  re-establishing  the  content  thereof  in  some  new 
form  or  way.  Again  and  again  has  this  been  proved 
in  political  history,  where  the  tyranny  of  a  king  has 
been  overthrown  only  to  establish  the  tyranny  of  a 
mob;  and  it  is  equally  marked  in  the  history  of 
ideas.  Thus  Descartes,  who  avowedly  began  by 
doubting  all  things,  was  led,  through  this  doubt,  to 
reaffirm  all  the  essential  elements  of  the  system  he 
sought  to  replace.  Nor  was  Luther  any  exception. 
He  but  re-established  in  different  guise  and  upon 
different  foundations  the  principles  of  exclusion  and 
authority,  logically  so  inconsistent  with  the  broaden- 
ing view  of  God  for  which  he  stood.  It  has  hap- 
pened, therefore,  that  Philosophy  and  Science  have 
been  left  to  champion  what  is  actually  the  Protestant 
conception  of  Deity,  and  the  universality  and  the 
immediacy  of  the  religious  relation.  This  concep- 
tion makes  quite  untenable  the  claims  of  organised 
religion,  which  I  have  tried  to  show  as  survivals  of 
the  old  communal  or  tribal  worship.  Therefore,  I 
believe  that  there  is  no  more  place  for  organised,  and 
so  exclusive,  religion  in  logic  than  there  is  in  our 
own  hearts.  Religion  must  be  immediate,  personal, 
wholly  individual,  containing  and  expressing  all  that 
the  man  himself  is. 

"  I  go  further,  however,  than  thinking  organisa- 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION     225 

tion  is  simply  unnecessary  or  superfluous.  I  believe 
it  has  been  positive  for  harm,  —  that  the  claim  of  the 
Church  to  be  exclusively  religious  has  greatly  impov- 
erished life  and  our  other  relations.  In  what  is  at 
once  the  wider  and  more  personal  concept  of  reli- 
gion, which  seems  to  me  the  true  one,  every  act  or 
moment  of  our  lives  must  have  its  religious  signifi- 
cance, which  is  the  essence  of  that  act  or  moment,  its 
deepest  and  most  sacred  meaning,  and  in  which  we  can 
see  God.  We  have  lost  much  by  looking  upon  reli- 
gion —  our  relation  to  the  Divine  —  as  something 
which  is  expressed  through  formulas  and  in  the 
church.  We  have  robbed  the  natural  order  of  life 
of  so  much  which  it  was  meant  to  have  —  which  it 
has,  if  we  could  but  persuade  ourselves  to  look  for 
and  find  it  in  the  daily  round.  The  Historian 
alluded  to  the  degradation  of  the  sex-relations  through 
the  monasticism  of  the  Middle  Ages,  but  is  not  the 
effect  of  the  Church  to-day  still  to  impoverish  and 
belittle  them?  It  truly  has  not  killed  marriage  as 
an  institution,  but  it  has  prevented  it  from  reaching 
the  development  and  the  sacredness  it  should  have 
reached.  We  are  not  taught  to  look  upon  sex-relations 
as  sacred  or  holy.  We  smile  at  the  worship  of  the 
lover.  Often  enough  it  is  foolish  and  absurd.  Never- 
theless, no  man  who  has  felt  real  love  but  knows  that 
in  it  the  heavens  have  opened  for  him  and  he  has 
come  nearer  to  God.  And  love  is  but  one  of  the 

15 


226  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

innumerable  aspects  of  life  of  which  the  same  is  true, 
—  which  have  been  impoverished  by  this  theory  that 
religion  is  concerned  with  organisation;  for  this 
leads  us  to  look  abroad  for  the  sacredness  which  lies 
most  close  at  home. 

"'I  would  like  to  make  my  attitude  clear  on  this 
matter,  and  I  do  not  know  whether  I  have  done  so 
or  not.  If  any  one  benefits  by  praying  with  others, 
or  by  any  type  of  collective  ceremony,  I,  of  course, 
have  no  objection  to  offer  to  associations  for  such 
purpose.  I  suppose  that  seems  very  much  like  what 
organised  religion  now  is.  The  word  i  organisation/ 
however,  implies  to  me  something  exclusive,  or  as 
though  a  religious  organisation  was  in  some  way 
particularly  or  specially  or  exclusively  religious,  and 
this  notion  of  confining  religion  I  think  very  un- 
fortunate and  harmful.  The  word  '  association  '  does 
not  have  for  me  the  same  connotations.  But,  as  you 
know,  I  personally  feel  that  religion  is  far  too  indi- 
vidual to  benefit  by  such  means.  That,  I  hope,  makes 
my  general  position  intelligible." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  It  does  not  seem  to  me, 
Professor  K — ,  that  your  views  are  as  radical  as  you 
made  us  anticipate.  If  I  understand  you,  you  hold 
that  nothing  should  stand  between  man  and  God. 
Religion  being  the  relation  of  man  to  the  Absolute, 
you  argue  that  it  must  be  direct  and  immediate  as 
well  as  universal.  The  Church  steps  in  and  says 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION     227 

intercourse  is  to  be  carried  on  through  it  and  only 
through  it.  It  wishes  to  be  an  assistance  and  inter- 
mediary, but  succeeds  only  in  being  an  added  veil 
between  us  and  the  light,  separating  what  should 
actually  blend,  and  restricting  what  is  universal.  To 
such  an  organisation  of  religion  —  which  makes  it 
a  matter  solely  of  an  hour  or  so  on  Sunday,  leaving 
the  rest  of  the  week  free  to  be  spent  as  we  like  —  you 
distinctly  object.  For  you  show  us  that  God  can  be 
found  in  every  moment  and  act  of  our  lives,  and  that 
if  we  do  not  so  find  Him  in  our  lives  they  are 
wretchedly  impoverished.  To  this  we  all  must  give 
assent,  as  we  must  to  your  final  admission  that  you 
have  no  objection  to  '  associations '  for  worship  or 
service  if  any  find  benefit  therein.  This  seems  to 
me  a  truer  view  than  the  other  of  the  actual  function 
of  the  Church.  I  think  it  was  the  Zoologist  who 
suggested  that  religion  was  fully  as  much  a  matter 
of  the  consciousness  of  our  relation  with  the  Abso- 
lute as  it  was  of  that  relation  itself.  We  must  surely 
all  know  the  inspiration  and  fresh  incentive  that 
comes  from  companionship  and  tradition ;  and  these, 
together  with  the  reawakening  of  our  religious  con- 
sciousness, are  services  which  religious  organisations 
or  '  associations  '  should  perform  for  us.  They  should 
help  us  to  be  more  truly  religious  at  all  times." 

THE   PEAGMATIST  :   "  I  would  not   agree  that  I 
needed  any  organisation  to  help  me  '  be  religious.' 


228  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

It  is  little  short  of  an  impertinence,  both  to  God  and 
to  me,  for  the  Church  to  assume  that  I  do." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN :  "I  am  again  confronted 
with  my  old  difficulty:  that  I  agree  with  others  so 
much  better  than  I  can  persuade  them  to  agree  with 
me.  Evidently  I  ought  to  listen  and  not  talk.  Will 
not  the  Oxonian  give  us  his  views  now  ?  " 

THE  OXONIAN  :  "  I  ran  over  so  in  my  three  topics 
at  our  last  meeting  that  I  have  reduced  to  writing 
what  I  wanted  to  say  to-night,  so  that  I  might  know 
just  how  long  it  would  take  me." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  You  know  I  told  you  the 
longer  you  spoke  the  better  we  would  be  pleased." 

THE  OXONIAN  :  "  It  was  very  good  of  you.  I 
asked  for  ten  minutes,  and  I  do  not  think  it  will 
take  me  longer  to  read  what  I  have  here.  Let  me 
put  it  to  the  test. 

"  We  have  all  of  us  at  one  time  or  another  fallen 
on  quiet  days  or  hours  and  read  for  a  while  in  the 
literature  of  counsel  and  ideal;  it  may  have  been 
in  Marcus  Aurelius,  or,  better,  in  Emerson,  or,  best 
of  all,  in  Poetry.  Has  it  ever  happened  to  you  to 
notice  when  the  time  had  well  passed  and  you  were 
immersed  again  in  work  and  society  that  there  had 
been  a  change  of  mental  weather;  that  you  were 
now  in  a  different  and  a  heavier  air,  in  which  the 
animating  ideas  looked  faded,  and  your  spiritual 
energy  had  flagged  ?  The  question  has  but  one  an- 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION     229 

swer,  and  on  that  answer  rests  the  defence  of  the 
Church. 

"  For  it  is  possible  to  keep  oneself,  comparatively 
speaking,  in  a  certain  atmosphere,  and  only  too  easy 
by  negligence  to  wander  out  of  it.  We  need  to  be 
brought  back  into  the  presence  of  thoughts  and  things 
that  renew  moral  ardour  or  recall  spiritual  reverence. 
We  need  to  be  reminded.  E"ow  the  Church  is  the 
great  reminder.  It  says  to  us,  I  have  called  His  ways 
to  remembrance. 

"  If  you  deliberately  practise  a  new  exercise,  it 
may  be  riding  or  canoeing  or  some  gymnastic  feat, 
what  is  at  first  awkward  and  trying,  the  last  thing 
you  can  naturally  do,  becomes,  of  course,  if  you 
acquire  it  at  all,  easy  and  spontaneous.  We  say  this 
is  because  the  machinery  of  muscle,  nerve,  and  cell 
has  been  adapted  to  its  task  and  the  muscle  has  been 
strengthened.  In  point  of  fact,  a  new  muscle  has  been 
made.  There  is  not  one  department  of  power,  art, 
science,  humour,  kindness,  or  social  grace  in  which 
the  like  does  not  hold  true.  As  the  familiar  French 
saying  runs,  the  function  makes  the  organ.  There 
is  a  single  word  for  this  idea,  the  making  of  organs. 
It  is  i  organisation.'  Only  we  must  not  forget  that  in 
every  case,  as  notably  in  muscle,  nerve,  and  cell,  it 
is  not  the  making  of  a  single  organ,  but  a  system  of 
organs  that  are  harmoniously  to  work  together.  And 
to  create  the  organisation  within  there  must  be  brought 


230  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

to  bear  fit  and  unfailing  agencies  without  —  organs 
to  build  organs. 

"  The  religious  body  that  calls  its  teachings  Chris- 
tian Science  protests  that  life  and  health  do  not 
depend  on  organs.  When  Christ  healed,  they  say, 
he  used  no  means ;  let  us  abjure  means  or  machinery 
in  general.  These  are  not  aids,  but  rather,  if  we  put 
any  faith  in  them,  they  are  clogs  upon  the  spirit, 
which  only  requires  to  wake  up  to  its  own  free  in- 
dependence. Yet  there  is  perhaps  but  one  other 
Christian  body  that  makes  so  persistent  and  masterly 
a  use  of  the  ecclesiastical  machinery  as  they.  (Hence, 
they  are  one  of  the  few  powers  which  that  other  body 
fears.)  Their  followers  shall  attend  the  services. 
The  cured  shall  bear  testimony  before  the  congrega- 
tion. The  chosen  passages  from  the  books  shall  be 
conned  and  studied.  The  lamp  shall  be  tended  and 
kept  burning.  Is  your  health  uncertain  again  ?  Do 
you  seem  to  be  overworking?  It  is  because  you  do 
not  give  enough  time  to  Science,  that  is,  to  the  calm 
attendance  or  reading  or  contemplation  that  is  en- 
joined. If  anything  goes  amiss  there  is  but  a  single 
remedy.  You  must  come  nearer  to  the  Divine.  And 
the  ways  are  marked  for  you. 

"  This  is  only  correct  psychology  or  comprehension 
of  human  nature.  John  Stuart  Mill  is  justly  re- 
garded as  in  great  measure  a  disciple  of  Bentham, 
but  Mill  remarks  that  the  religious  teachers  of  the 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION     231 

Church  had  a  far  deeper  knowledge  of  the  profundi- 
ties and  windings  of  the  human  heart  than  Bentham. 
The  truth  is  that  you  do  not  gain  men  for  a  com- 
manding idea,  and  mould  them  to  it  by  making  small 
demands  upon  them,  but  by  making  great  demands. 
Unitarianism  makes  small  demands,  does  not  deem 
the  Church  very  necessary,  intimates  that  the  chief 
thing  is  a  wholesome  civic  and  family  life,  correct 
habits,  and  good-natured  feelings;  accordingly,  Uni- 
tarianism is  the  outer  surface  of  the  Christian 
religion,  where  evaporation  takes  place.  We  find 
something  more  to  the  purpose  of  life  in  Mrs.  Glad- 
stone's simple  remark  that  her  husband  conquered 
his  irritability  by  years  of  daily  prayer. 

"  In  no  case  is  this  more  clearly  true  than  in  the 
poetic  interest.  It  is  said,  let  religion  be  as  free  as 
the  poetic  sense.  It  is  often  quite  as  free  and  quite 
as  evanescent.  For  the  poetic  interest  easily  atro- 
phies. It  completely  atrophied  in  the  hackneyed  case 
of  Darwin.  But,  also,  it  easily  fails  to  develop  at  all. 
It  is,  of  course,  a  frequent  law  of  interests  and  in- 
stincts that,  if  not  taken  at  their  period  of  readiness, 
they  wither  and  lose  their  responsiveness.  Needless 
to  say,  all  whom  we  call  poets  have  heard  or  read 
poetry.  Wordsworth  tells,  in  the  Excursion,  of  a 
man  who  would  have  written  verse  if  he  had  had  it 
about  him  in  his  youth.  Nothing  vibrates,  nothing 
lasts,  nothing  carries  its  atmosphere  and  aroma  from 


232  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

mind  to  mind  and  from  book  to  mind  more  than  verse ; 
nothing  can  sleep  more  soundly  in  the  brain  when  we 
let  the  stores  alone.  This  is  embodied  in  the  homely 
saw,  '  Poetry  is  catching.'  Amongst  gracious  foster- 
ing traditions,  rich  with  the  spoils  of  time,  encourag- 
ing originality  while  offering  aid  and  added  impulse, 
the  tradition  of  poetry  has  a  sure  place.  It  does  in 
some  sort  for  a  race  what  a  parent  of  refined  interests 
does  for  his  children,  when  he  carefully  chooses  his 
time  to  put  Macaulay's  Lays  and  Scott  and  Byron 
and  Tennyson  and  Keats  and  Shakespeare  in  their 
hands,  and  finds  some  means  of  inciting  them  to 
'keep  up  their  poetry.'  A  nation  that  read  poetry 
more  than  ours  and  rewarded  it  with  more  apprecia- 
tion, and  on  all  sides  criticised  it  by  the  standard  of 
the  best,  would  have  a  richer  harvest  than  we.  Per- 
haps one  day  American  Universities  will  attack  this 
fact.  What  poetry  and  literature,  together  with  the 
whole  element  of  tone  and  taste,  flagrantly  want  in 
America,  is  criticism,  —  our  great  lack,  —  the  preach- 
ing of  standards,  the  organised  bringing  to  bear  of 
the  best  we  know,  —  a  natural  office  of  universities, 
journals,  and  voluntary  associations,  which  should 
fill  the  atmosphere  with  it,  that  it  might  circulate 
insensibly. 

"  The  word  '  voluntary '  recalls  the  idea  of  freedom 
so  perplexingly  invoked  in  this  discussion.  Is  unor- 
ganised religion  hampered  because  the  organised  ex- 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION     233 

ists  ?  Need  we  care  for  Whitman  less  because  we 
know  the  power  of  Milton's  measure  ?  Are  the  woods 
and  the  mountain-top  robbed  of  their  awe  because 
men  build  a  house  to  God  ?  Are  we  less  prone  to  be 
moved  by  a  chance  sight  of  the  sublime  because  we 
call  His  ways  to  remembrance  every  day  ?  The  truth 
is  that  the  spontaneous  warmth  of  sentiment  that  all 
prize,  which  can  neither  be  confined  nor  loosed  at 
will,  is  not  a  mere  fragrance  in  the  air,  wafted  hither 
and  thither  by  an  idle  breeze.  It  rather  is  to  be 
likened  to  the  blooming  of  a  plant  with  roots.  It 
draws  its  vitality  from  the  habit  and  spirit  of  the 
mind,  and  is  easily  sapped  at  a  point  below  its  level. 
"  Perhaps  you  will  ask  me  what  all  this  has  to  do 
with  the  actual  Church  of  history,  bound  and  bar- 
nacled with  inheritances  that  obstruct  the  life  of  the 
spirit.  On  the  abuses  and  infidelities  of  the  Church 
it  is  tempting  to  dilate.  No  one  of  modern  educa- 
tion will  question  that  its  dogmatic  system,  its  form 
of  organisation,  its  legal  and  penal  attitude  toward 
faith,  and  much  of  its  moral  principle  are  from 
sources  quite  other  than  the  precept  of  Christ,  — 
not  wholly  harmful  for  that  reason.  Christ  framed 
no  organisation;  he  only  brought  a  spirit  and  idea 
so  potent  that  in  the  economy  of  human  things  they 
demanded  an  organisation  to  perpetuate  them.  In  a 
grossly  imperfect  manner  they  have  been  perpetuated. 
They  are  an  everlasting  gospel.  He  left  his  legacy 


234  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

amongst  men.  It  had  to  survive  (if  survive  it  could 
at  all)  by  taking  the  rougher,  hardier,  impurer  forms 
that  suit  the  mass  of  human  society  and  by  uniting 
for  centuries  with  much  that  was  alien  to  its  essence. 
In  so  doing  it  also  united  with  much  that  was  sound 
and  solid,  though  superadded  to  itself. 

"  But  now  the  Church  stands  before  us  an  im- 
mense fact,  a  broad  foundation,  halls  where  the  peo- 
ple may  be  addressed,  in  a  measure,  habits  of  attend- 
ance and  worship.  It  is  daily  widening  its  view, 
opening  doors  and  windows.  What  a  means  for  the 
stimulus  and  instruction  of  communities !  Do  you 
wish  to  see  this  enormous  '  plant/  as  the  commercial 
phrase  is,  left  derelict?  Do  you  think  that  ardour 
for  the  ideal  is  already  superabundant  ?  Or  do  you 
wish  to  see  men  of  critical  and  fastidious  mind  pass 
into  it  in  greater  force  and  leaven  the  whole  ?  Per- 
haps you  are  not  edified  by  its  history.  Well,  fools 
build  houses  —  yes,  and  knaves,  too  —  that  wise  men 
may  dwell  in  them.  Perhaps  you  think  that  con- 
temporary forms  of  worship  and  contemporary 
preaching  are  for  the  most  part  ill  calculated  to 
nourish  cultivated  minds.  Enter  and  modify  them. 
The  light  and  mellowness  of  the  few  must  be  im- 
perfect, said  Arnold,  until  the  raw  and  unkindled 
masses  of  humanity  are  touched  with  them  too; 
those  are  the  flowering  times  for  spiritual  things 
when  there  is  a  national  glow  of  life  and  thought, 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION     235 

when  the  whole  of  society  is  in  the  fullest  measure 
permeated  by  it.  In  the  Church,  now  gradually 
growing  free  and  flexible,  the  most  discerning  criti- 
cism of  life  and  the  deepest  kindling  of  the  spirit 
might  be  at  home. 

"  The  rest  must  be  brief. 

"  Christianity  is  social.  The  Mahometan  may  pray 
alone  in  his  mosque,  and  one  Greek,  or  one  Hindoo, 
might  sacrifice  alone  in  his  temple,  but  we  gather  in 
churches  as  a  society.  A  man  of  cultivation  says, 
perhaps,  that  he  avoids  church-going  because  he  gains 
nothing  by  it.  The  truth  is  he  gains  nothing  by  it 
because  he  is  capable  of  avoiding  it  as  a  poor  bargain. 
He  has  gone  that  lie  may  be  instructed  and  uplifted 
(to  use  the  cant  phrase)  for  the  purposes  of  his  life 
outside  the  walls.  That  is,  indeed,  a  purpose  of 
church  service,  but  it  is  not  the  only  purpose,  and  it 
is  fulfilled  only  by  passing  chance,  one  might  almost 
say,  if  the  chief  purpose  be  neglected.  The  service 
is  not  all  an  exercise  about  something  else,  about  life, 
behaviour,  heaven,  and  the  rest.  It  exists  for  its  own 
sake.  Where  religion  is  real,  I  do  not  mean  in  every 
case  or  in  every  breast,  there  is  a  contagion  and  a 
common  warmth,  what  we  in  other  cases  call  the 
spirit  of  the  thing,  kept  alive  by  observance,  by  sing- 
ing, by  prayer  and  rite  and  invocation.  It  is  an 
experience,  an  enhancement  of  life,  an  infinitesimal 
portion  of  that  communion  in  which  religion  culmi- 


236  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

nates,  social  in  its  nature,  and  so  not  unfitted  for  the 
other  end  of  binding  men  together  as  citizens  of 
their  common  world. 

"  The  life  of  the  Church,  rightly  conceived,  is  a 
procession  of  symbolism.  Now  all  life  hangs  on 
symbols.  We  perceive  by  symbols  only,  we  think  by 
their  means  only,  our  feelings  cling  to  nothing  else. 
Science  is  a  system  of  human  symbols  and  is  anthro- 
pomorphic through  and  through.  The  same  is  true 
of  art  and  religion.  Now  the  continuity  of  any  reli- 
gion, the  lasting  gist  and  burden  of  its  faith,  is  best 
committed  to  beautiful  and  venerable  symbols,  which 
stand  while  thoughts  waver,  and  round  which  thoughts 
may  safely  work  in  unrestraint.  Of  such  symbols, 
in  spite  of  its  sins,  the  Christian  Church  has  been 
the  one  custodian." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  The  Oxonian  has  said 
what  I  was  trying  to  say  —  only  far  better  than  I 
could  have  hoped  to  do.  He  has  emphasised  also  the 
value  of  organisation  as  an  instrument  —  as  a  means 
of  making  our  religious  experience  or  aspiration 
effective  in  the  world  and  of  service  to  others.  It 
is  the  effectiveness  of  organisation  which  is  its  most 
salient  feature.  But  before  we  enter  upon  a  detailed 
discussion  of  the  Oxonian's  paper  I  would  like  to 
ask  the  Author  also  to  speak  upon  the  same  theme, 
for  I  know  him  to  have  studied  the  Church  organisa- 
tion from  a  very  interesting  point  of  view.  Will  you 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION     237 

not  repeat  for  us  all,  E — ,  what  you  talked  to  me 
of  the  other  day  ?  Or  put  it  as  you  will." 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  What  I  would  rather  say  would 
be  in  the  nature  of  a  commentary  at  once  upon  the 
Pragmatisms  definition  of  religion  (as  the  relation 
of  the  individual,  or  man,  to  the  universal,  or  God), 
and  also  on  the  statement  of  the  Historian,  at  our  last 
meeting,  that  Jesus  did  not  intend  to  form  an  or- 
ganisation. It  seems  to  me  we  can  get  a  good  deal 
of  light  on  the  subject  by  seeing  how  the  organisa- 
tion of  the  Church  actually  arose;  by  treating  it 
historically,  in  a  little  greater  detail  than  the  His- 
torian was  able  to  do,  having  so  much  longer  a  period 
to  cover.  There  is  abundance  of  evidence  on  the 
subject  and  we  have  easy  access  to  it. 

"  First,  I  take  issue  with  the  Historian  in  that  I 
think  it  unquestionable  that  Jesus  himself  did  estab- 
lish an  organisation,  and  did  so  deliberately.  Let 
us  consider  the  early  period  of  his  ministry,  espe- 
cially as  recorded  by  Matthew,  an  eye-witness  of  the 
early  doings  in  Galilee. 

"  We  have,  first,  the  Baptism  of  Jesus  by  John 
the  Baptist,  from  whom  Jesus  seems  to  have  taken 
the  rallying  cry :  '  The  kingdom  of  heaven  has  drawn 
near.'  (Matt,  iii,  2.)  Immediately  after  we  have 
the  Temptation,  and  then  the  first  missionary  epoch, 
in  which  Jesus  visited  the  synagogues  of  Galilee, 
'  preaching  the  gospel  of  the  kingdom '  (Matt,  iv,  23), 


238  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

declaring,  in  the  words  adopted  from  John  the  Bap- 
tist, that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  had  drawn  near. 

"  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  which  immediately 
follows,  sets  forth  this  Gospel  of  the  Kingdom :  '  Ex- 
cept your  righteousness  shall  exceed  the  righteousness 
of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no  case 
enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven.'  This  whole  sermon 
is  to  be  taken  in  connection  with  certain  passages 
in  the  fourth  Gospel,  such  as  the  conversation  between 
Jesus  and  Nicodemus,  where  Jesus  declares :  i  Ex- 
cept a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom 
of  God.  .  .  .  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of 
the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.' 
(John  iii,  3,  5.) 

"  We  see,  therefore,  that  the  Gospel  of  the  King- 
dom was  the  doctrine  that  we  must  be  born  again, 
or  born  from  above  (anothen  means  both)  ;  that  this 
spiritual  re-birth  follows  on  the  death  of  egotism 
('He  that  would  save  his  life  shall  lose  it');  and 
that  by  this  re-birth  from  above  the  soul  is  ushered 
into  a  new  spiritual  consciousness,  the  consciousness 
of  '  the  realm  of  the  heavens.' 

"  Both  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  the  Sermon 
of  the  Last  Supper  make  it  clear  that  Jesus  conceived 
this  new  consciousness  as  bringing  the  soul  into  direct 
and  immediate  relation  with  the  Divine.  In  the 
former  he  speaks  of  the  soul  standing  in  the  pres- 
ence of  '  the  Father  who  sceth  in  secret,'  and  in  the 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION     233 

latter  lie  says,  i  If  a  man  love  me,  lie  will  keep  my 
words:  and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and  we  will 
come  unto  him,  and  make  our  abode  with  him/ 
(John  xiv,  23.) 

"  Therefore,  we  find  Jesus  teaching  a  new  birth 
from  above  which  ushered  the  soul  into  the  realm 
of  the  heavens,  where  it  held  direct  communion  with 
the  Divine,  and  also  (and  this  is  most  significant) 
with  the  spirit  of  Jesus  himself.  It  is  quite  clear 
that,  if  we  contemplate  a  group  of  those  who  were 
thus  '  re-born  from  above/  a  group  of  disciples,  their 
souls  would  stand  in  a  direct  interior  relation  to  the 
spirit  of  the  Master,  and  this  would  undoubtedly 
imply  a  new  relation  between  these  souls  among 
themselves.  This  would  be  a  sort  of  divine  and  nec- 
essary organisation,  flowing  out  of  their  common 
spiritual  relation  to  the  Master,  and  due  to  the  driv- 
ing power  of  the  Master's  spiritual  force,  affecting 
them  all  alike.  This  is  a  vital  side  of  the  matter,  to 
which  I  should  like  to  return  in  a  moment. 

"  Now,  to  take  up  the  thread  immediately  after 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  we  find  Jesus,  impressed 
with  the  thought  that  the  harvest  was  plenteous,  but 
the  labourers  few  (Matt,  ix,  37),  organising  a  vig- 
orous propaganda,  and  sending  forth  his  twelve  dis- 
ciples throughout  Galilee  and  Judea,  to  preach  that 
'  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was  at  hand.'  (Matt,  x,  7 ; 
cf.  Mark,  vi,  7  et  seq.)  He  laid  down  a  series  of 


240  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

rules  for  their  work,  and  thus  undoubtedly  estab- 
lished a  preaching  organisation. 

"  This  preaching  order  visited  many  towns  and 
villages,  especially  in  Galilee ;  and,  at  the  same  time, 
Jesus  Himself  continued  His  own  propaganda,  speak- 
ing in  the  synagogues,  not  only  throughout  the  coun- 
try, but  also  in  the  metropolis. 

"  To  this  vigorous  propaganda,  thus  systematically 
carried  out,  was  due  the  foundation  of  the  central 
religious  organisation  at  Jerusalem,  which  continued 
after  the  Crucifixion;  and  a  picture  of  which,  with 
some  embellishments,  perhaps,  we  get  in  the  early 
chapters  of  the  Acts.  Luke  was  not  an  eye-witness 
of  these  events,  therefore  his  testimony  here  is  not  so 
striking  in  its  vivid  accuracy  as  it  is  in  the  later 
chapters,  where  he  was  personally  present,  with  Paul. 
But  we  may  rely  on  his  account  of  the  central  or- 
ganisation in  all  its  main  outlines. 

"  Just  such  a  preaching  mission  as  we  have  already 
seen  carried  out  by  Jesus  and  his  twelve  disciples 
was  later  organised  by  Paul,  and  groups  of  students 
were  formed  in  various  towns  of  Asia  Minor,  and 
a  little  later  in  Greece  and  Italy,  to  study  the  teach- 
ings. We  should  note  here  that  these  groups  were 
formed  of  students  of  certain  teachings,  and  not  ex- 
clusively of  those  who  had  been  '  re-born  from  above,' 
in  the  full  sense.  They  met  to  study  the  sayings  of 
Jesus,  of  which  Luke  speaks  as  being  already  written 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION     241 

down;  and  also  the  letters  of  Paul,  and  later  of 
Peter  and  the  other  apostles.  We  have  an  interest- 
ing survival  of  this  in  '  the  Gospel  for  the  day/  and 
*  the  Epistle  for  the  day/  which  still  form  an  essen- 
tial part  of  the  services  of  the  Church. 

"  By  a  process  entirely  natural  the  older  students 
had  a  certain  weight  and  authority  in  these  groups, 
and  we  find  many  references  to  them  in  the  thirty 
years  after  the  Crucifixion.  They  are  called  in  the 
Greek  presbuteroi,  and  women  students  of  the  same 
class  are  spoken  of  as  presbuterai.  These  words  are 
generally  rendered  '  elders  ' ;  and  we  can  see  that  they 
came  to  be  looked  on  as  a  natural  governing  or  direct- 
ing body. 

"  In  Acts  xx  there  is  a  very  interesting  episode  in 
which  these  elder  students  play  a  part.  From  Greece 
Paul  had  crossed  over  to  the  Asian  shore,  and  was 
in  port  not  far  from  Ephesus.  He  sent  for  the  elder 
students  of  the  group  at  Ephesus,  and  addressed 
them,  bidding  them  take  heed  for  themselves  and 
for  the  flock,  over  which  the  Holy  Spirit  had  made 
them  overseers  (episkopoi),  and  described  to  them 
the  duties  of  their  position,  and  the  spirit  in  which 
they  should  carry  it  out.  Then  he  bade  them  fare- 
well, saying  that  they  would  see  his  face  no  more, 
and  they  saw  him  off  on  his  voyage  to  Tyre. 

"  This  was  probably  about  the  year  60.  A  few 
years  later  we  find  Paul  laying  down,  for  the  guid- 

16 


TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

ance  of  Timothy,  the  qualifications  of  the  overseer 
(episkopos)  :  The  episkopos  '  must  be  blameless,  the 
husband  of  one  wife,  vigilant,  sober,  of  good  be- 
haviour, given  to  hospitality,  apt  to  teach,  not  given 
to  wine,  no  striker,  not  greedy  of  filthy  lucre,  but 
patient,  not  a  brawler,  not  covetous;  one  that  ruleth 
well  his  own  house,  having  his  children  in  subjection 
with  all  gravity  (for,  if  a  man  know  not  how  to  rule 
his  own  house,  how  will  he  take  care  of  the  church 
of  God?)7  and  so  forth.  Writing  to  Titus,  probably 
about  the  same  time,  Paul  gives  exactly  the  same 
qualifications  for  the  episkopos  (Titus,  i,  7),  who  is 
to  be  '  the  husband  of  one  wife,  having  faithful  chil- 
dren/ and  so  on.  These  letters  were  probably  written 
from  Rome,  a  few  months  before  Paul's  execution. 

"  Here  is  a  perfectly  natural  organisation :  the 
groups  of  students  in  various  towns,  as  the  result  of 
the  vigorous  propaganda  already  described ;  the  elder 
students  having  a  certain  weight  and  authority,  as 
was  entirely  natural;  and  the  overseer  or  director 
(a  married  man  with  a  family),  to  guide  and  direct 
each  group. 

"  We  find  Peter  laying  down  certain  most  useful 
moral  rules  for  the  presbuteros  and  the  episkopos 
(1  Pet.  v),  i  The  elders  which  are  among  you  I 
exhort,  who  am  also  an  elder,  and  a  witness  of  the 
sufferings  of  Christ.  .  .  .'  Peter  lays  special  stress 
on  the  principle  of  religious  liberty,  warning  the 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION     243 

elders  and  overseers  (episJcopountes)  against  i  lord- 
ing it  over  the  flock.7  I  have  long  thought  that  Peter 
is  here  quoting  the  words  of  his  Master  himself :  '  Ye 
know  that  the  princes  of  the  Gentiles  exercise  do- 
minion over  them  .  .  .  but  it  shall  not  be  so  among 
you  .  .  .'  (Matt,  xx,  25;  Mark,  x,  42),  the  Greek 
word  being  the  same  as  that  used  by  Peter.  There- 
fore, both  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  and  the  students 
of  the  disciples  themselves  were  specifically  warned 
against  that  domineering  spirit,  that  lording  it  over 
the  flock,  which  worked  such  deep  harm  in  later 
centuries. 

"  We  saw  that  Paul  indicated  the  father  of  a 
family  who  ruled  his  children  well  as  a  fit  person 
to  be  an  episJcopos.  It  is  easy  to  see  how  the  paternal 
authority,  the  patria  potestas,  which  was  the  founda- 
tion of  early  civil  law,  might  colour  the  mind  of  the 
episJcopos,  and  gradually  develop  him  into  such  a 
bishop  as  we  see  in  the  post-apostolic  age.  We  can 
also  see  how  the  priestly  idea  might  be  added  to  the 
character  of  the  elder  student  (presbuteros) ,  and, 
indeed,  we  can  see  the  process  at  work  in  Hebrews  vii, 
where  Paul  writes  of  Jesus  as  '  a  priest  after  the 
order  of  Melchisedek.'  It  would  be  possible  to  trace 
the  whole  growth,  step  by  step,  till  we  came  to  the 
full-grown  hierarchy.  The  preponderating  influence 
of  the  world's  metropolis  naturally  gave  a  like  in- 
fluence to  the  episJcopos  at  Rome,  and  thus  we  have 


244  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

the  germ  of  the  Papacy.  The  point  is,  however,  that 
this  organisation  grew  up  quite  naturally  among  the 
students  in  various  towns;  and  that  we  can  see  the 
intrusive  elements  gradually  changing  what  was  at 
first  a  free  order  into  a  despotism.  The  fault  is  not 
with  the  order,  but  with  the  intrusive  elements,  which 
must  be  extruded  once  more,  as  indeed  they  are  being 
extruded  in  these  latter  days. 

"  To  come  back  now  to  the  point  touched  on  before. 
We  found  Jesus  speaking  of  the  new  birth  from 
above,  in  virtue  of  which  the  soul  of  the  disciple  was 
brought  into  immediate  spiritual  touch  with  the  spirit 
of  the  Master :  i  we  will  come  unto  him  and  make 
our  abode  with  him.'  This  was  said  on  the  eve  of 
his  death,  and  at  a  time  when  he  was  fully  convinced 
that  his  death  was  at  hand.  But  we  do  not  find 
Jesus  thinking  of  this  relation,  thus  inwardly  estab- 
lished between  his  spirit  and  the  souls  of  the  dis- 
ciples, as  about  to  be  ended  by  his  death;  on  the 
contrary,  he  clearly  contemplates  it  as  something  to 
endure  indefinitely,  quite  independent  of  his  death. 
'  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world.'  .  .  .  '  Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  to- 
gether in  my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them.' 
It  is  here  clearly  contemplated  that  the  inner  rela- 
tion between  the  soul  of  the  disciple  and  the  spirit 
of  the  Master  shall  continue,  quite  independently  of 
the  approaching  death  of  Jesus. 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION     245 

"  I  believe  that  we  have  an  instance  of  the  estab- 
lishment of  this  interior  relation  in  the  conversion 
of  Paul  on  the  road  to  Damascus.  The  soul  of  Paul 
came  into  interior  touch  with  the  spirit  of  the  Master 
on  that  occasion,  and  this  interior  relation  continued 
throughout  Paul's  life.  Again,  the  relation  already 
established  between  the  soul  of  John  and  the  spirit 
of  the  Master  continued  throughout  John's  long  life, 
and  I  believe  the  Apocalypse  is  a  record,  in  part,  of 
that  conscious  relation.  The  very  strangeness  of  this 
thought  is,  no  doubt,  one  of  the  reasons  why  the 
authenticity  of  the  Apocalypse  has  been  called  in 
question. 

"  I  am  convinced  that  John  and  Paul  are  only 
the  first  members  of  an  unbroken  series;  that,  side 
by  side  with  the  '  apostolic  succession,'  there  has  been 
a  succession  of  saints,  who  have  in  their  interior  lives 
realised  the  ideal  of  Jesus,  when  he  said :  '  Behold,  I 
stand  at  the  door,  and  knock:  if  any  man  hear  my 
voice,  and  open  the  door,  I  will  come  in  to  him,  and 
will  sup  with  him,  and  he  with  me.'  (Rev.  iii.  20.) 
This  is  exactly  the  ideal  expressed  in  the  Sermon  of 
the  Last  Supper,  and  the  same  image  is  used  for  the 
spiritual  communion. 

"  We  have  an  unbroken  series  of  witnesses  to  the 
truth  of  this  promise.  I  need  mention  only  a  few, 
such  as  St.  Columba,  St.  Francis  of  Assisi,  St.  Cath- 
erine of  Siena,  all  of  whom  bore  testimony  to  just 


246  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

such  communion  as  that  described  by  Paul  and  John. 
And  I  believe  that  to  the  spiritual  power  of  these 
great  souls,  and  many  more  like  them,  is  due  the 
spiritual  power  of  the  Church  through  the  centuries. 
They  were  the  salt  of  the  Church;  their  spiritual 
power  is  the  silver  lining  to  the  dark  cloud  of  eccle- 
siastical domination. 

"  Thus,  it  seems  to  me,  we  have  first  the  spiritual 
organisation  of  the  disciples,  as  taught  and  exem- 
plified by  Jesus ;  an  order  which  is  really  continuous 
throughout  the  centuries.  And  we  have,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  organisation  of  the  disciples  of  these  dis- 
ciples, the  students  in  various  towns,  with  their 
'  elder  students  '  and  '  overseers  '  gradually  develop- 
ing into  priests  and  bishops.  This  secondary  organi- 
sation was,  at  first,  entirely  natural  and  healthy, 
but,  in  virtue  of  certain  intrusive  elements,  notably 
the  desire  to  dominate,  it  was  choked  by  such  over- 
growths as  were  indicated  at  our  last  session.  If 
rid  of  these  over-growths,  as  we  see  it  being  rid, 
especially  in  these  latter  days,  it  will  once  more  be- 
come something  as  healthy,  as  wholesome,  as  humane 
as  it  was  on  the  day  when  Paul  took  leave  of  the 
elder  students  of  Ephesus,  and  launched  his  boat 
on  the  waves  on  his  way  to  Tyre,  and  thence  to 
Borne." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  It  could  only  be  with 
much  hesitation  and  many  misgivings  that  anyone 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION     247 

would  attempt  to  summarise  the  three  views  of  organ- 
isation we  have  listened  to.  Each  contains  so  much  of 
value,  each  differs  so  completely  from  the  others  in  the 
view-point  adopted.  But,  different  as  they  are,  they 
do  not  seem  to  me  unrelated;  and  I  believe  that, 
however  faulty  must  be  the  result,  the  attempt  to 
exhibit  their  unity  will  be  of  value. 

"  The  Pragmatist  begins  by  re-emphasising  the 
universality  of  religion :  that  the  essence  of  all  things 
is  sacred,  that  God  is  to  be  found,  and  worshipped 
and  served,  in  each  moment  and  act  of  our  lives; 
and  that  to  the  extent  to  which  organised  religion  is 
exclusive,  it  is  an  obscurant  and  a  barrier  —  im- 
poverishing life,  dwarfing  religion,  and  obscuring 
God. 

"  The  Oxonian  dwelt  on  the  value  and  the  need  of 
times  of  attuning  ourselves  to  the  inner  rhythm,  in 
order  that  our  relation  to  the  universal  may  be  one 
of  harmony  rather  than  discord;  and  that  through 
this  harmony  we  may  become  conscious  of  the  spirit 
of  life,  whose  universality  I  understand  he  would 
admit,  but  the  consciousness  of  which  is  both  too 
limited  and  too  evanescent.  He  next  passes  to  the 
efficiency  of  organisations,  using  the  Christian  Science 
regulations  as  an  illustration  thereof.  It  seems  to 
me  that  Christian  Science  illustrates  equally  the 
Pragmatist's  point,  of  the  exclusiveness  of  formal 
religious  bodies.  For,  though  I  object  to  much  in 


248  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

Christian  Science,  much  else  is  of  value  and  appeals 
to  a  genuine  need  of  the  heart.  But  the  churches 
have  excluded  it  all  from  organised  religion.  Stand- 
ing isolated  and  alone,  as  a  separate  '  ism/  the  un- 
fortunate elements  have  been  emphasised,  and  where 
in  proper  relation  it  might  have  been  wholly  good  it 
now  seems  fruitful  also  of  harm.  But  that  is  not 
my  theme.  Finally  the  Oxonian  pleads  that  we  view 
the  Church  not  only  for  what  it  can  give  to  us,  but 
for  what  we  can  give  to  it,  and  through  it  to  the 
world,  recognising  that  Christianity  is  social  and 
that  its  forms  are  only  symbols,  —  symbols  such  as 
are  necessary  to  science  as  to  religion,  or  to  thought 
itself. 

"  The  Author  presents  the  Church  organisation  as 
but  the  historic  outgrowth,  expression,  or  symbol  of 
an  actual  brotherhood ;  of  ties  which  are  not  matters 
of  external  forms  but  of  inner  fact.  Those  animated 
by  a  common  purpose  or  ideal  find  that  this  fact  acts 
as  a  bond  between  them  whether  they  will  or  no. 
We  see  this  among  men  of  science  quite  as  plainly 
as  anywhere  else.  Those  who  are  seeking  the  solu- 
tion of  the  same  problem  find  themselves-  drawn 
together  in  a  tie  which  is  often  closer  than  that  of 
blood.  Much  more  is  this  true  among  disciples  of 
the  same  Master.  This,  I  take  it,  would  be  what  the 
Editor  spoke  of  as  the  '  Church  Invisible,'  which 
the  visible  Church  should  symbolise.  That  it  must 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION     249 

include  to-day  many  outside  the  ranks  of  organisa- 
tion is  evident;  so  here,  too,  we  would  return  to 
the  Pragmatisms  objection  of  exclusion  in  religious 
matters.  Membership  in  such  a  Church  as  the  Author 
has  sketched  must  be  a  matter  totally  of  our  own 
interior  attitude,  the  relation  in  which  we  put  our- 
selves to  the  Christ  spirit  and  '  the  will  of  the  Father 
in  Heaven.7  This  is  something  it  would  seem  neces- 
sary for  the  visible  Church  to  realise  if  it  is  to  be 
indeed  Catholic,  or  symbolise  truly  the  inner  brother- 
hood of  which  the  Author  speaks. 

"  Incomplete  as  this  summary  is,  it  will,  I  trust, 
serve  to  put  all  these  views  before  us  for  discussion. 
The  field  is  certainly  both  rich  and  wide." 

THE  YOUTH  :  "  I  have  to  go  in  a  few  minutes,  but 
there  are  one  or  two  things  I  would  like  to  say  first, 
if  I  may  do  so  now.  I  have  been  thinking  about 
what  the  Clergyman  said  at  our  last  meeting.  You 
remember,  Mr.  F — ,  you  were  speaking  of  how  much 
the  Church  meant  to  you,  and  particularly  prayer 
within  the  Church,  so  that  you  were  sure  your  reli- 
gious feelings  could  only  be  satisfied  in  organisation. 
Now,  I  think  that  is  unhealthy.  I  don't  think  it  is 
the  normal,  healthy  thing  to  want  to  enter  an  organi- 
sation or  a  church  whenever  you  feel  religious.  Last 
Sunday  I  entered  a  church,  and  as  I  sat  there  the 
sun  came  in  the  window  and  a  breath  of  air  and 
some  notes  of  a  song-sparrow  that  must  have  wan- 


250  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

dered  from  the  park.  I  felt  religious,  and  I  got  up 
and  walked  out 

"  Another  thing :  The  Oxonian  asked  us  whether 
the  sun  and  the  mountains  and  the  beauty  of  nature 
meant  less  to  us  because  we  built  churches;  and 
whether  regular  religious  practices  made  us  less 
likely  to  be  moved  spontaneously  by  what  was  beau- 
tiful. I  say  yes,  I  think  they  do.  If  we  associate 
acts  of  religion  and  religious  feeling  with  certain 
times  and  environment,  we  tend  to  forget  them  at 
others.  That  is  simply  common  sense.  I  don't  think 
of  winding  my  watch  until  I  take  my  waistcoat  off, 
nor  of  the  newspaper  save  at  breakfast,  nor  of  my 
slippers  save  in  my  own  room.  You  attend  to  the 
news  at  breakfast  and  then  comfortably  forget  about 
it  until  the  next  breakfast.  And  it  is  exactly  the 
same  with  religion.  If  you  associate  your  religious 
feeling  with  eleven  o'clock  on  Sunday,  you  forget 
all  about  it  from  one  week's  end  to  the  next. 

"  Again,  take  what  the  Oxonian  said  about  making 
organs.  As  soon  as  you  make  an  organ  for  a  certain 
purpose  you  turn  that  function  over  to  the  organ 
and  you  yourself  disregard  it.  You  don't  think  about 
digestion.  You  let  your  stomach  do  it  for  you.  You 
only  do  what  you  have  n't  an  organ  to  do  for  you, 
and  only  think  about  it  when  the  organ  fails  —  when 
you  have  indigestion.  I  don't  remember  much  about 
the  little  biology  I  was  supposed  to  learn,  but  I 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION     251 

think  there  was  some  kind  of  a  sea  urchin  or  animal 
that,  so  long  as  it  did  n't  have  any  mouth  or  stomach, 
wrapped  itself  around  its  food  and  digested  with  all 
of  itself.  As  soon  as  it  developed  a  mouth  and 
stomach,  it  let  these  feed  for  it.  That  is  what  I 
think  happens  when  we  organise  our  religious  sense 
and  feeling.  We  turn  it  over  to  something  or  other 
and  cease  to  think  ahout  it. 

"  This  is  what  I  particularly  wanted  to  say,  and 
I  am  much  obliged  to  you  for  letting  me  say  it  and 
run  away.  I  wish  I  did  n't  have  to  go.  But  I  must. 
Good-night  to  you  all." 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  As  I  have  been  holding  down 
the  safety-valve  for  two  months  I  find  it  difficult  to 
refrain  longer  from  entering  again  into  the  discus- 
sion. There  is  so  much  in  what  has  been  said  upon 
which  we  may  all  agree  that  it  may  seem  ungracious 
to  bring  up  points  of  difference ;  but  there  are  some 
matters  that  have  been  presented  regarding  which 
there  may  be,  I  think,  at  least  two  points  of  view. 
I  think  that  zoologists  are  agreed  now  that  function 
does  not  precede  structure,  as  has  been  stated  by  the 
Oxonian,  in  discussing  the  religious  consciousness. 
If  there  is  anything  that  modern  experiment  and 
observation  have  taught,  it  is  that  structure  itself 
precedes  the  function,  or,  at  least,  the  two  are  so 
combined  that  it  is  not  correct  to  speak  of  one  as 
coming  first  and  controlling  the  other.  And  then, 


252  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

too,  I  find  it  difficult  to  believe  that  so  purely,  in- 
dividual a  thing  as  the  religious  consciousness  or 
function  '  necessitates '  organisation  at  all,  any  more 
than  a  function  of  a  lower  order,  such  as  digesting 
or  seeing,  necessitates  a  gathering  together  of  men  in 
order  that  each  man  may  thereby  facilitate  digestion 
or  sight.  Take  our  luncheon  room  at  the  University. 
Pleasant  as  the  conversation  is,  it  certainly  is  not 
necessary  for  the  purpose  of  eating.  Indeed,  it  draws 
the  blood  from  the  individual  stomach,  where  it  is 
needed  for  digestion,  and  thus  is  actually  deleterious 
to  the  primary  object  of  our  being  there.  I  cannot 
see  that  the  coming  together  of  people,  possessed  of 
religious  feelings,  into  organisations  is  essential,  or 
even  useful,  any  more  than  the  assembling  of  twenty 
typewriting  machines  in  one  room  facilitates  the 
working  of  each  individual  machine. 

"  While  it  is  true  that  men  will  naturally  associate 
themselves  for  the  discussion  of  great  topics  that  in- 
timately concern  them,  it  seems  to  me  that  religious 
communion,  involving  the  sense  of  the  relation  of 
the  individual  to  the  universe  at  large,  scarcely  gains 
from  publicity.  And  did  not  Christ  himself  enjoin 
his  followers  to  '  enter  into  the  closet '  for  solitary 
communion  with  the  great  things  of  the  universe? 

"  And  then,  too,  the  cloud  that  may  have  its  silver 
lining  —  although  it  seems  a  pity  that  in  order  to 
have  a  silver  lining  we  have  to  have  the  cloud  —  is 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION     253 

that  when  an  organisation  is  once  formed  it  tends 
to  solidify  in  a  very  unfortunate  way;  it  tends  to 
inhibit  real  growth  in  so  far  as  it  leads  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  fixed  boundaries  of  dogma  that  are  con- 
sidered final.  ~No  one  better  than  Clifford  has  in- 
sisted upon  the  absence  of  finality  in  one's  system 
of  thought,  if  growth  in  mental  and  intellectual  re- 
spects is  to  continue,  for  the  plastic  condition  only 
allows  growth.  And  the  organisation  of  religion,  like 
any  other  conventional  organisation,  tends  to  the 
establishment  of  the  static  condition.  I  think  that  a 
good  biological  analogy  is  that  of  the  crustacean  —  " 
THE  BANKER  :  "  I  beg  pardon  ?  " 
THE  BIOLOGIST  :  "  He  means  a  crab  —  a  lobster." 
THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  The  crustacean,  which  forms  a 
rigid  shell  about  itself  only  to  find  itself  cramped 
and  incapable  of  further  development  until  it  casts 
off  the  whole  incumbrance  —  truly  a  painful  process, 
the  more  so  in  proportion  to  the  rigidity  and  in- 
sufficiency of  the  encasement.  Is  it  not  better  to 
keep  our  mental  integument,  so  to  speak,  soft  like 
that  of  the  humbler  worm,  so  that  we  may  grow  con- 
sistently and  uniformly  ?  For  any  organisation  that 
we  may  deem  final  at  any  time  will  certainly  be 
found  inadequate  if  our  knowledge  increases  as  it 
should.  So  I  think  that  the  organisation  of  religious 
views  or  emotions,  besides  leading  to  fictitious  re- 
sults, as  the  Pragmatist  has  so  well  said,  really  in- 


254  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

kibits  the  free  and  full  development  of  religious 
thought,  which  is,  after  all,  a  purely  individual  thing, 
an  individual  function  of  the  human  organism. " 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  wonder  whether  it 
would  be  possible  to  defend  the  statement  that  the 
more  individual  a  thing  is  the  more  it  profits  from 
association  with  other  individuals.  If  so,  it  would 
seem  to  have  bearing  on  what  you  have  just  said.  It 
seems  to  me  you  rightly  insist  that  religious  thought 
and  aspiration  are  individual,  but  I  suspect  diges- 
tion is  only  individual  in  the  sense  that  each  must 
do  it  for  himself.  It  does  not  appear  to  me  indi- 
vidual in  any  true  sense,  but,  on  the  contrary,  me- 
chanical and  formal,  —  practically  the  same  chemical 
and  physical  process  in  each  of  us,  as  incapable  of 
anything  really  individual  as  are  the  typewriting 
machines  of  your  other  illustration. 

"  Forgive  me  for  taking  these  illustrations  in  an- 
other sense  from  that  in  which  you  used  them.  I 
quite  agree  with  the  point  you  made,  that  each  man's 
religion  must  be  developed  and  practised  within  him- 
self;  that  he  must  enter  into  his  closet  for  prayer 
and  meditation,  and  express  the  light  he  gains  in  his 
daily  life.  But  granted  this,  is  there  not  still  use 
for  religious  associations  or  organisations?  Our 
lunch-room  conversations  may  draw  the  blood  from 
our  digestive  processes,  but  they  greatly  help  our 
thought,  and,  I  believe,  considerably  improve  our 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION     255 

literary  and  scientific  productivity,  despite  the  fact 
that  the  actual  work  thereof  must  be  done  at  other 
times.  I  suspect  too  that  the  more  strongly  marked 
our  individuality,  the  more  we  can  profit  by  such 
interchange,  so  that  the  more  we  work  alone  the  more 
we  can  profit  by  association.  Just  as  genius  can 
contribute  the  most  in  a  conversation,  it  will  also 
receive  the  most.  Are  not  both,  therefore,  needed? 
Both  solitude  and  companionship  ?  It  seemed  to  me, 
as  I  listened  to  the  Author's  account  of  the  Church 
fellowship,  that  it  was  much  like  that  existing  among 
us  at  the  University,  —  each  working  on  his  own  line, 
yet  each  inspiring  others." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  What  I  miss  in  these  discus- 
sions is  the  historical  view!  My  mind  cannot  get 
away  from  the  historical  facts,  or  from  things  as  they 
are.  It  would  need  a  psychologist,  an  historian,  and 
a  first-class  writer  of  fiction  to  express  what  is  seeth- 
ing and  boiling  in  me.  You  professors  and  scientists 
take  an  academic  attitude  which  I  cannot  follow. 
You  question  and  analyse  the  heart  out  of  things, 
and  theorise  about  facts  that  are  right  before  your 
eyes.  You  walk  through  them  as  though  they  were 
not  there.  We  must  look  at  facts  as  they  are,  —  as 
they  are,  —  for  I  must  say  again  that  I  believe  our 
future  idealism  is  to  be  found  in  the  heart  of  the 
facts  of  life.  Here  is  organisation.  Religion  always 
has  had  organisation  and  it  always  will  have.  Here 


256  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

is  the  Church ;  it  always  will  be  here.  The  fact  that 
it  is  is  the  proof  that  it  is  necessary.  The  fact 
that  I  need  it  and  that  John  Smith  needs  it  and  that 
Sam  Jones  needs  it,  and  finds  comfort  or  strength  in 
its  ministrations,  is  more  convincing  than  any  argu- 
ment, —  for  it  is  a  fact,  and  my  mind  cannot  get 
over  facts.  Without  this  fact  do  you  think  any  or- 
ganisation could  have  endured  for  nineteen  hundred 
years?  It  is  not  a  question  whether  the  Church  is 
necessary.  The  existence  of  the  Church  answers  that 
before  it  is  asked.  The  question  is,  how  can  the 
human  need  to  which  the  Church  owes  its  existence 
be  best  met  and  fulfilled? 

"  Why,  the  very  first  impulse  of  anyone  to  whom 
something  large  and  inspiring  has  come  is  to  go  and 
find  someone  else  to  whom  he  can  tell  it,  with  whom 
he  can  share  it.  Moreover,  it  is  never  wholly  his 
until  he  has  shared  it.  Until  imparted  to  another, 
spiritual  experience  remains,  for  a  side  of  our  mind, 
intangible  and  vague.  It  is  only  made  perfectly  our 
own  as  we  give  it  to  others  and  use  it  in  the  service 
of  others.  The  Oxonian  put  it  very  beautifully. 
Christianity  is  social,  and  the  Church  exists  for  ser- 
vice, —  for  the  service  of  man  in  the  spirit  of  Christ. 

"  Walk  out  of  the  Church  ?  As  our  young  friend 
did  and  would  have  us  do  ?  For  what  end  ?  What 
was  the  result  ?  There  ought  to  have  been  something 
very  great  and  beneficial  to  have  justified  such  a 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION    257 

startling  and  unusual  procedure.  Was  he  benefited  ? 
Or  perhaps  it  was  the  Church  that  was  benefited? 
I  wish  he  had  told  us.  The  truth  is  that  those  who 
walk  out  of  the  Church  simply  cut  themselves  away 
from  a  wide  relationship  and  a  magnificent  oppor- 
tunity of  service.  Cut  off  from  organisation,  they 
are  effective  neither  to  help  it  nor  to  help  the  world. 
That  is,  not  nearly  so  effective  as  when  they  had 
command  of  all  the  machinery." 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  And  yet,  Mr.  F — ,  the  churches 
too  often  make  it  impossible  for  an  independent 
thinker  to  remain  in  their  organisation.  Dr.  Crap- 
sey  will  serve  as  an  example.  Do  you  not  think  it 
very  unfortunate  to  turn  such  men  as  he  is  out  of  the 
Church  ?  And  if  the  churches  do  this,  if  they  per- 
mit their  obsolete  system  of  dogma,  which  belongs  to 
an  earlier  stage  of  thought,  to  expel  their  ministers 
for  simple  straight  thinking,  can  they  expect  to  appeal 
to  straight-thinking  laymen  ?  Is  it  not  a  pity,  but  is 
it  not  also  true,  that  organised  religion  is  exclusive 
of  the  free  movement  of  thought ;  and  if  we  (  scien- 
tists and  professors  '  neglect  the  Church,  does  not 
the  Church  neglect  us  ?  " 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  I  was  opposed  to  the  trial  of 
Dr.  Crapsey.  I  do  not  think  the  action  taken  in 
his  case  typical  of  the  spirit  of  the  Church  as  a 
whole.  It  was  the  action  of  but  one  court  in  a  single 
diocese." 

17 


258  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

THE  OXONIAN  :  "  Yes.  And  even  that  has  worked 
for  good.  The  significance  of  the  Crapsey  trial  is 
that  it  is  the  last  the  Episcopal  Church  will  have. 
It  has  already  refused  to  try  a  clergyman  who  wrote 
his  bishop  he  agreed  entirely  with  Dr.  Crapsey. 
Thus,  though  Dr.  Crapsey  has  been  unfrocked,  his 
trial  has  strengthened  the  liberal  movement." 

THE  AUTHOR :  "I  believe  the  Oxonian  is  right. 
And  not  only  does  it  seem  to  me  that  the  Episcopal 
Church  is  broadening,  but  that  the  same  liberalising 
movement  is  evident  in  all  Christendom,  irrespective 
of  denomination.  Nowhere,  indeed,  is  it  more  marked 
than  in  Catholicism,  particularly  among  the  French 
Catholics.  I  have  been  reading  recently  some  of 
Abbe  Loisy's  writings.  Do  you  know  them,  Mr. 
F—  ?" 

THE  PRAGMATIST  :  "  But  has  not  Loisy  recently 
been  placed  upon  the  Index  ? " 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Yes,  but  that  is  the  re- 
action of  the  external  organisation,  not  the  true  spirit 
of  the  Church.  I  think  we  must  always  expect  the 
Vatican  to  be  reactionary.  The  interesting  thing  is 
to  see  how  Catholicism  is  being  broadened  despite 
the  Vatican." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  The  crab  casting  its  shell." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  Exactly,  and  having  cast  this, 
it  will  grow  another  which  must  in  its  turn  be  cast, 
and  so  on  indefinitely.  But  surely  the  shell  must 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION    259 

fulfil  some  function.  The  trouble  is  only  when  an 
old  one  is  retained  too  long." 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  Yes,  but  there  is  a  better  way 
than  growing  shells.  The  Crustacea  are  not  particu- 
larly advanced  organisms.  The  churches  will  be  com- 
pelled, as  they  have  been  at  other  times  in  the  past, 
to  admit  the  inadequacy  of  their  present  rigid  en- 
casement. But  it  is  rather  a  pity,  I  think,  that  when 
they  undergo  an  ecdysis  they  immediately  replace 
the  old  shell  with  a  new  one  equally  rigid,  that  must 
itself  be  discarded  at  some  future  time.  At  least 
one  great  lesson  of  science,  the  mutability  of  human 
thought,  is  too  seldom  learned." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  You  have  brought  the 
central  problem  again  before  us.  How  can  we  broaden 
organised  religion,  how  can  we  free  it  from  its  nar- 
rowness and  its  exclusiveness  ?  How  increase  its 
effectiveness  ?  Or,  as  those  of  us  who  are  without 
the  Church  can  do  little  or  nothing,  how  should  those 
within  direct  their  labours  ?  " 

THE  PKAGMATIST  :  "  It  is  a  question  of  replac- 
ing religions  by  Religion,  of  freeing  what  is  uni- 
versal from  the  obscuring  limitations  placed  around 
it." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Precisely.  How  can  we 
come  closer  to  the  unity  of  life  ?  How  can  our  vari- 
ous religious  organisations  lay  aside  their  shells  and 
their  differences,  broaden  and  purify  themselves,  that 


260  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

they  may  fittingly  express  the  great  universal  current 
of  religious  life  ?  " 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  Why  seek  to  unify  ? 
Why  want  to  break  down  differences  ?  Why  not  let 
Methodists  be  Methodists,  and  Catholics,  Catholics, 
and  Brahmins,  Brahmins?  Is  not  this  wide  variety 
of  form  and  symbol  valuable  in  itself?  Has  not 
each  creed  and  ceremony  a  beauty  of  its  own  ?  Should 
we  not  rather  keep  all  types,  and  welcome  more,  as 
evidences  of  the  infinite  richness  of  religious  aspira- 
tion? Why  seek  to  merge  in  one  gray  common  tone 
all  this  rich  variety  of  colour,  all  this  wealth  of  asso- 
ciation and  tradition,  all  this  living  heart-history  of 
the  race  ?  Is  it  not  all  infinitely  beautiful,  infinitely 
pathetic,  and  infinitely  dear  ?  " 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Surely  yes.  The  unity 
we  seek  must  be  the  One  behind  the  many;  not  one 
instead  of  many.  It  must  contain  within  itself  all 
the  richness,  all  the  infinite  variety  of  expression,  all 
the  impossibility  of  confinement  to  a  single  form. 
Yet  I  would  have  each  organisation  realise  this: 
that,  thereby,  each  may  be  enriched  by  the  richness 
of  what  it  seeks  to  reflect." 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  Is  it  not  a  question  of  emphasis  ? 
It  seems  to  me  we  can  get  at  it  in  this  way.  If  we 
study  the  teachings  of  the  great  religious  leaders  we 
find  two  things:  First,  a  distinctly  local  element, 
which  is,  for  example,  Chinese  in  Lao-Tze,  Indian 


ORGANISATION    AND    RELIGION     261 

in  Buddha,  Persian  in  Zoroaster,  and  so  on;  and, 
second,  we  find  a  universal  element  which  is  the  same 
in  all  teachings.  Is  not  the  latter  (  Religion/  with  a 
capital  R,  and  is  it  not  to  be  learned  by  a  sympa- 
thetic, comparative  study  of  religions,  seeking  the 
part  common  to  all  ?  It  seems  to  me  this  comparative 
study  gives  us  exactly  what  the  Pragmatist  is  asking 
for ;  the  pure  spirit  of  Religion,  apart  from  all  local 
and  personal  elements. 

"  What  is  true  of  the  great  religions  is  equally  true 
of  the  sects  of  each,  and  I  think  we  could  approach 
unity  without  impoverishment,  if  each  denomination 
would  dwell  upon  that  which  is  universal  in  its  be- 
lief and  service,  and  recognise  the  rest  as  personal, 
not  to  be  forced  or  required.  If  we  dwell  upon  that 
which  is  universal,  we  approach  unity;  if  we  dwell 
upon  what  is  personal,  we  create  only  difference  and 
discord." 

THE  ZOOLOGIST  :  "  If  the  churches  would  do  that, 
they  would  find  themselves  as  united  to  Science  as 
they  would  be  to  each  other.  But  they  must  do  it. 
We  cannot." 


VIII 

SIGNS  OF  THE  TIMES— THE  RENAISSANCE  OF 
RELIGION 

THE  late  spring  had  finally  passed  into  sum- 
mer, and  with  the  coming  of  warmer  weather 
the  annual  exodus  from  the  city  had  begun. 
The  Zoologist  had  sailed  for  the  South  Pacific,  seek- 
ing further  data  for  his  researches  into  the  Origin 
and  mutation  of  species.  The  Banker  was  in  Am- 
sterdam, arranging,  it  was  said,  for  the  importation 
not  of  species  but  of  specie.  The  Biologist  was  pre- 
siding at  a  medical  conference  in  a  distant  city.  The 
Pragmatist  had  gone  to  his  country  home,  and,  on 
the  evening  set  for  the  meeting  at  the  Mathemati- 
cian's rooms,  a  message  was  received  from  the  Ox- 
onian saying  that  he  also  would  be  unable  to  attend. 
It  developed  later  that  he  and  the  Youth  had  gone 
canoeing  together,  and  had  been  prevented  by  head 
winds  and  tide  from  making  their  home  port  in  time. 
There  was  some  doubt  as  to  the  whereabouts  of  the 
Historian  —  as,  having  moved  his  family  to  the  moun- 
tains, while  his  own  work  kept  him  near  the  libraries, 
he  was  sometimes  to  be  reached  at  his  club  and  some- 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES  263 

times  not.  For  this  evening  he  had  said  he  had 
three  separate  engagements,  in  as  many  different 
places,  but  had  scouted  the  suggestion  that,  as  he 
could  not  possibly  keep  all  three,  he  might  as  well 
keep  none  and  join  the  discussion,  where  he  was  much 
wanted.  Later,  however,  he  had  said  he  would  come 
if  he  could. 

The  Author  had  been  asked  to  open  the  discus- 
sion, but,  perhaps  because  of  the  uncertainty  as  to  the 
Historian's  coming,  or  perhaps  because  of  the  feel- 
ing of  intimate  understanding  that  the  smaller  circle 
emphasised,  the  conversation  remained  long  infor- 
mal and  without  premeditated  direction.  When  the 
Author  entered  he  found  the  Philosopher  in  his 
accustomed  seat  in  the  corner  of  the  cushioned  win- 
dow bench,  talking  with  the  Editor  and  Mathemati- 
cian about  Pragmatism. 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  No.  I  confess  I  think 
the  Preacher  of  Pragmatism  is  greater  than  his 
doctrine.  You  remember,  C — ,  that  very  pleas- 
ant evening  given  us  by  the  Oxonian  —  at  the 
close  of  James's  lectures  here,  when  he  had  us  all 
dine  together,  and  our  '  round  table  talk '  after- 
wards? The  breadth  and  human  sympathy  of  the 
man  seemed  so  much  greater  than  the  system  he 
was  defending." 

THE  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  I  remember  very  well.  I 
remember,  too,  your  parable." 


264  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  Was  A —  guilty  of  a  parable  ? 
Do  let  us  hear  it." 

THE  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  He  was  indeed.  But  he 
will  have  to  tell  it  to  you  himself." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  It  was  not  a  parable ;  it 
was  a  fact." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  All  true  parables  are  facts ;  as  all 
facts  are  parables,  if  we  would  only  so  think  of  them. 
The  Author  ought  to  make  that  into  an  aphorism. 
When  he  has,  I  shall  propose  it  as  a  motto  for  science. 
But  tell  us  your  story,  A — ." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN :  "It  is  not  much  to  tell, 
and  it  requires  a  long-winded  introduction.  As  you 
know,  the  dinner  was  given  at  the  close  of  Professor 
James's  series  of  lectures  on  Pragmatism,  and  he  was 
holding  the  lists,  as  its  champion,  against  all  comers. 
It  so  happened  that  I  was  sitting  next  to  him,  so  my 
turn  came  last.  It  is  too  long  ago  to  remember  just 
what  I  said,  but  I  recollect  the  general  trend  of  my 
thought.  In  one  of  the  early  lectures  Professor 
James  had  spoken  of  Pragmatism  as  i  limbering  up  ' 
our  philosophic  systems,  and,  above  all,  as  mediating 
in  philosophic  antinomies  and  contradictions.  This 
had  aroused  most  agreeable  anticipations.  A  philo- 
sophic system  or  method  that  would  do  this  must, 
indeed,  be  what  I  was  seeking;  for  my  trouble  has 
always  been  that  my  own  life  insists  upon  uniting 
what  logic  insists  are  opposed.  The  description  of 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES  265 

existence  necessitates  a  paradox  which  living  resolves. 
A  man  is  really  more  than  a  logical  copula.  But, 
however  that  may  be,  my  anticipations  were  doomed 
to  disappointment,  and  I  was  again  and  again  told 
I  must  choose  this  or  that,  when  I  knew  perfectly 
well  I  took  both.  This  was  very  marked  in  the 
lecture  on  Pragmatism  and  Religion,  when  Professor 
James  insisted  we  must  look  either  forward  or  back, 
and  believe  either  in  predestination  or  in  free  will. 
For  his  own  part,  he  said,  if  he  were  offered  exist- 
ence in  a  world  where  salvation  was  not  assured  from 
the  beginning,  but  was  conditional  upon  his  doing 
himself  his  level  best,  and  upon  every  one  else  doing 
the  same,  he  would  accept  such  existence  gladly  and 
enthusiastically.  He  believed,  moreover,  that  a  will- 
ingness to  accept  safety  and  happiness  only  as  the 
prize  of  successful  endeavour  showed  a  healthier, 
more  vigorous  religion  than  that  which  made  of  sal- 
vation a  universal  and  necessitated  process,  performed 
upon  us  from  without.  Now  with  all  of  this  I  could 
have  completely  agreed  if  I  had  not  been  told  the 
two  views  were  inconsistent,  and  that  I  must  choose 
between  them. 

"  Those  '  ors '  of  Professor  James  irritated  me, 
and  when  I  had  the  chance  I  said  so.  I  said  that 
instead  of  having  limbered  our  philosophic  muscles 
such  a  doctrine  showed  all  the  signs  of  a  bad  stiff- 
neck.  In  actual  fact  we  looked  both  to  the  past  and 


266  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

the  future  in  guiding  our  conduct.  If  our  philosophy 
could  look  only  in  one  direction,  then  our  philosophy 
was  stiff-necked. 

"  Professor  James  had  said  we  must  choose  be- 
tween the  doctrines  of  universal  salvation  and  that 
of  a  salvation  depending  upon  individual  effort.  I 
was  compelled,  both  by  heredity  and  personal  train- 
ing, to  believe  the  two  were  not  opposed :  by  heredity, 
because  a  great  grandfather  of  mine  was  the  first 
preacher  of  universal  salvation  in  this  country;  by 
personal  training,  because  of  the  little  incident  of 
my  childhood  to  which  C —  refers. 

"  It  was  a  still  winter  day,  I  remember,  and  I,  a 
small  boy  of  ten  or  so,  had  the  afternoon  to  myself,  — 
save  that  I  had  been  told  to  clear  the  snow  from  the 
path  to  the  gate.  I  had  thought  I  would  play  first 
and  work  afterwards,  and  had  had  a  most  happy 
time  building  a  snow  fort.  After  a  while  a  new  idea 
seized  me,  and  I  went  to  the  house  for  my  sled.  My 
mother  met  me  and  asked  if  I  had  shovelled  the 
path.  I  said  no,  I  had  been  playing.  She  reminded 
me  gently  that  whatever  duty  I  had  to  do  I  should 
have  done  at  once,  and  bade  me  do  it  then.  I  knew 
she  was  right,  but  tried  to  justify  myself  by  saying 
I  had  only  been  told  to  do  it  before  I  came  in.  Her 
reply  was  a  quiet '  Very  well,  but  see  you  remember/ 
and  I  went  coasting.  When  I  came  back  it  was  late, 
—  too  late,  I  thought,  to  shovel  snow.  My  mother 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES  267 

thought  otherwise.  I  could  take  my  own  time,  but 
that  path  was  to  be  made  before  I  came  in.  I  went 
back  into  the  winter  dusk,  away  from  the  warmth 
and  the  light,  full  of  rebellion,  sure  that  no  boy  was 
ever  so  badly  treated  or  had  such  heartless  parents. 
But  I  would  show  them!  So  I  made  a  great  pre- 
tence of  enjoying  myself  —  snow-balling  the  trees  and 
whistling  as  cheerily  as  I  could  —  hoping  I  was  being 
watched  from  the  windows.  They  would  see  I  did  n't 
care.  By  and  by  they  would  be  anxious  at  my  being 
out  so  late,  and  would  call  me  in.  But  they  did  not. 
]STot  a  curtain  moved.  The  darkness  and  the  lone- 
liness grew  deeper.  Visions  of  being  out  all  night, 
of  freezing  supperless  in  the  snow,  came  before  me. 
I  began  to  think  how  sorry  my  mother  would  be  when 
she  found  my  poor  frozen  body  in  the  morning  and 
knew  she  had  killed  me.  I  was  filled  with  self-pity 
at  the  melancholy  scene.  I  had  to  struggle  with  a 
lump  in  my  throat,  and  a  warm  tear  or  two  trickled 
down  my  cheek.  But,  after  a  while,  even  the  com- 
forting picture  of  my  mother  weeping  at  my  funeral 
failed  to  sustain  me.  I  knew  there  was  only  one 
way ;  and,  fight  against  it  as  I  might,  I  knew  it  was 
the  right  way.  I  got  to  work  with  the  shovel. 

"  Now  here  is  the  point.  If  there  was  anything 
certain,  to  one  who  knew  that  small  boy,  it  was  that 
he  would  sleep  that  night  in  his  own  bed  after  a  good 
supper.  It  was  equally  certain,  to  one  who  knew  his 


268  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

mother,  that  he  could  not  do  it  until  he  had  per- 
formed his  task.  In  theory  the  two  doctrines  may 
be  opposed,  but  in  practice  they  are  one.  Life  is  so 
constituted  that  we  cannot  escape  our  tasks,  and  we 
are  so  constituted  that  salvation  is  necessary  for  us. 
We  can  play  as  long  as  we  see  fit,  but  sooner  or  later 
we  must  '  see  the  truth  and  do  our  whole  duty  on 
our  journey  to  the  Sacred  Seat.' ' 

THE  EDITOR:  "What  did  James  say?" 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  He  thanked  me  for  a 
'  beautiful  illustration '  of  his  own  view,  and  later 
called  me  a  pluralist  when  I  was  defending  monism !  " 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  I  wonder,  Professor  C — ,  if  you 
have  seen  that  new  book  of  Dr.  Inge's?  He  makes 
a  very  able  argument  against  the  adoption  of  the 
pragmatic  attitude  in  religious  questions." 

THE  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  You  mean  the  Paddock 
Lectures  which  he  delivered  at  the  General  Theo- 
logical Seminary  this  winter  ?  " 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  Yes.  They  have  just  appeared  in 
book  form  under  the  title  i  Personal  Idealism  and 
Mysticism.' ' 

THE  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  I  have  noticed  a  number  of 
favourable  reviews,  but  have  not  yet  read  it.  It  ought 
to  be  an  interesting  book." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  It  is,  —  very.  As  the  title  indi- 
cates, it  is  a  defence  of  mysticism  against  the  '  Will 
to  Believe '  and  (  Personal  Idealism '  of  the  Prag- 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES  269 

matists.  But  the  treatment  is  so  broad  and  con- 
structive that  it  never  degenerates  into  barren  con- 
troversy. In  fact,  it  is  one  of  the  most  lucid  and 
sympathetic  expositions  of  Christian  mysticism  and 
the  philosophy  of  the  Neoplatonists  that  I  have 
seen.  Inge  has  the  unusual  ability  to  make  subtle 
things  clear  without  hardening  or  materialising 
them." 

THE  AUTHOB  :  "  That  is  indeed  a  rare  gift,  and 
one  most  necessary  for  this  theme." 

THE  PHILOSOPHEE  :  rt  How  does  he  develop  his 
argument  ? " 

THE  EDITOE  :  "  You  must  read  the  book.  The 
first  chapter  is  on  '  Our  Knowledge  of  God/  which 
he  begins,  I  remember,  by  a  quotation :  '  Such  as  men 
themselves  are,  such  will  God  appear  to  them  to  be/ 
and  finds  the  basis  of  man's  religion  in  his  experi- 
ence. But  man,  he  holds,  is  a  microcosm  with  affini- 
ties to  every  grade  of  existence,  so  that  in  a  sense 
man  shares  in  the  experience  of  the  whole.  One 
sentence  here  reminded  me  of  the  Zoologist's  talk. 
For  Dr.  Inge  suggests  that,  as  in  prenatal  life  the 
human  embryo  runs  through  all  the  lower  forms,  so 
in  the  spiritual  aspiration  of  mankind  there  is  a  fore- 
shadowing or  dim  anticipation  of  another  long  period 
of  growth  and  upward  progress  for  the  race,  which 
can  culminate  only  in  a  divinity  already  potentially 
ours.  We  can  know  only  what  is  akin  to  ourselves, 


£70  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

but  there  is  that  in  us  which  is  akin  to  God.  The 
religious  problem  is  to  identify  ourselves  with  this 
indwelling  divinity  and,  by  conforming  our  nature  to 
its  laws,  to  share  in  its  consciousness  and  immortality. 

"  It  is  in  the  emphasis  upon  the  reality  of  spirit- 
ual law,  and  the  need  of  obedience  thereto,  that 
mysticism  is  in  opposition  to  the  ultra-individualism 
and  utilitarianism  of  pragmatic  thought.  The  cen- 
tral concept  of  Inge's  argument,  as  of  all  Christian 
mysticism,  is,  of  course,  the  Logos  doctrine,  —  that 
the  true  self  of  man  is  the  spark  of  the  Logos,  which 
is  one  in  us  and  in  all  that  is.  It  is  a  cosmocentric 
philosophy  as  opposed  to  the  anthropocentric  atti- 
tude of  the  early  Churchmen  and  of  modern  Prag- 
matism. Against  the  notion  of  an  impervious  and 
isolated  personality  Dr.  Inge  contends  with  both 
force  and  acumen.  He  holds,  indeed,  that  it  is 
totally  contrary  to  the  whole  content  and  spirit  of 
Jesus's  teachings,  and  that  its  importation  into  Chris- 
tianity, its  ingrafting  upon  a  tradition  which  knew 
nothing  of  it,  is  responsible  for  the  distortion  and 
absurdities  of  Christian  theology.  If  we  abandon 
this  view  of  ourselves  as  isolated  units,  and,  in  par- 
ticular, if  we  take  the  Christ  as  typifying  and  ex- 
emplifying the  life  of  the  Logos  in  man,  then  even 
the  imagery  of  Jesus's  teaching  becomes  logical  and 
consistent. 

"  But,  really,  it  is  absurd  for  me  to  try  to  sum- 


SIGNS    OP    THE    TIMES          271 

marise  his  argument.  It  is  the  time-old  thesis  of 
mysticism  —  only  presented  with  singular  clearness, 
and,  it  seemed  to  me,  very  ably  defended.  It  is  re- 
markable how  wide-spread  the  present  revival  of 
mysticism  is,  and  it  is  as  much  as  a  sign  of  the  times 
as  for  its  own  merit  that  Dr.  Inge's  work  so  holds 
my  interest.  —  Who  is  this,  I  wonder  ?  " 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  The  Social  Philosopher, 
and,  —  yes,  the  Clergyman.  Excuse  me." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  I  wish  you  had  been  at  his  church 
last  Sunday  evening,  E — .  It  was  one  of  the  most 
interesting  services  I  ever  attended.  F —  had  a 
Jewish  Rabbi  there  who  gave  the  sermon  or  address. 
I  want  to  ask  him  about  it  when  the  Mathematician 
is  done  playing  the  host. 

"  Good  evening,  Mr.  F — .  We  were  just  talking 
of  that  very  interesting  service  last  Sunday.  What 
a  remarkable  speaker  that  Jewish  Rabbi  is !  Who  is 
he?" 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  Rabbi  — .  He  was  educated 
here  and  first  preached  here.  Then  he  went  west  to 
S — ,  where  he  had  a  large  synagogue  and  was  very 
successful.  They  wanted  him  to  stay,  but  he  decided 
to  come  back  to  this  city  and  found  a  free  synagogue ; 
which  means,  I  think,  a  pretty  liberal  one." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  He  is  certainly  an  able  speaker. 
I  have  rarely  listened  to  more  finished  eloquence, 
though  he  was  evidently  talking  extemporaneously,  or 


TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

at  least  without  notes.  And,  his  oratory  quite  apart, 
one  could  not  help  being  impressed  by  the  move- 
ment of  his  thought.  The  '  Fellowship  of  Religions  ? 
is  a  theme  which  presents  difficulties,  —  after  all 
these  centuries  of  warring  creeds,  —  yet  he  did  not 
dodge  or  evade  them;  he  faced  them  squarely,  but 
with  a  penetration  and  a  tact  which  compelled  my 
admiration. 

"  Is  it  not  unusual  for  a  Jewish  Rabbi  to  take 
part  in  a  Christian  service  and  preach  from  an 
Episcopal  pulpit  ? " 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  I  do  not  remember  ever  hav- 
ing heard  of  its  being  done  before,  but  there  is  no 
essential  reason  why  it  should  not  have  been.  The 
service,  you  know,  was  one  of  the  joint  services  of 
the  State  Conference  of  Religion." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  am  afraid  I  do  not 
know.  I  was  even  unaware  of  the  existence  of  such 
an  organisation.  What  is  it  ?  " 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  It  is  a  body  organised  about 
eight  years  ago  by  ministers  and  laymen  of  a  number 
of  different  denominations.  At  the  start  I  think 
there  were  twelve  different  religious  bodies  repre- 
sented. The  motto  they  adopted  expresses  the  gen- 
eral attitude  of  the  Conference,  '  Religions  are  many, 
Religion  is  one.'  They  hold  that  individual  beliefs 
should  be  loyally  maintained,  but  that  Religion  unites 
many  whom  Theology  divides,  and  that  in  religious 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES  273 

work  much  may  be  gained  from  co-operation  and 
mutual  understanding.  This  the  conference  aims  to 
promote.  They  have  a  number  of  meetings  for 
addresses  and  discussion,  and  frequently  common 
services  —  such  as  that  in  our  Church  last  week. 
They  do  not  seek  to  change  anyone's  theology  or 
belief,  but  only  to  work  together  for  the  common 
end  of  personal  and  social  righteousness." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  What  an  admirable  idea  it  is !  " 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  I  am  afraid  it  has  not  accom- 
plished very  much  as  yet.  But  they  tell  me  it  is 
growing  all  the  time.  At  any  rate,  its  influence  is 
good." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  It  is  surprising  that 
you  have  been  able  to  include  the  Jews.  I  do  not 
mean  that  it  is  so  remarkable  from  the  Christian 
standpoint  as  from  that  of  Jewish  orthodoxy.  From 
what  I  have  heard,  the  hatred  of  the  Cross  is  still 
deeply  felt  there." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  The  Kabbi  told  a  very  pretty  story 
of  the  way  in  which  the  unity  of  religions  was  first 
brought  home  to  him.  He  was  coming  out  of  his 
synagogue  one  day  when  he  noticed  an  elderly  man 
upon  the  steps  who  bowed  to  him  as  he  was  about  to 
pass.  The  Rabbi  stopped  and  greeted  him,  asking 
if  he  belonged  to  his  church.  The  man  replied,  '  I 
hope  so,  sir.' 

"  This  answer  being  somewhat  cryptic,  the  Rabbi 
18 


£74  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

repeated  his  question :  '  Your  face  is  strange  to  me. 
You  are  a  member  of  this  synagogue  ? ' 

"  '  No,  sir/  said  the  man ;  ( this  is  the  first  time 
I  have  been  here.' 

"  l  From  what  synagogue  do  you  come  ? ' 

" '  From  none.' 

"  '  From  none  ?  Of  what  church,  then,  are  you  a 
member  ? ' 

"  '  Of  that,  sir,  of  which  I  trust  you  also  are  a 
member  —  The  Church  of  God.' 

"  The  Rabbi  told  us  he  went  home  with  many  new 
thoughts  in  his  mind.  He  did  not  tell  us  whether 
his  interlocutor  was  Christian  or  Mahometan,  Brah- 
min or  Buddhist.  And  the  beauty  of  the  story  is 
that  it  does  not  matter.  However  the  religions  of 
men  may  be  separated  by  creeds  and  formulas,  which, 
after  all,  are  more  matters  of  racial  psychology  than 
anything  else,  they  are  united  in  the  essential  object 
of  their  worship." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  It  would  be  a  long  step 
forward  for  organised  religious  worship  could  it  rec- 
ognise this,  and,  laying  emphasis  upon  the  unities  of 
religion,  let  the  differences  rest." 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  Do  you  know,  Mr.  F — ,  anything 
of  the  Conference  I  believe  was  held  last  winter 
between  the  Presbyterians,  Congregationalists,  and 
Methodists  as  to  a  possible  closer  union  ? " 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  No.    Where  was  it  ?  " 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES  275 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  In  Toronto.  I  heard  of  it  from  a 
correspondent  there,  but  have  missed  seeing  the  re- 
port, if  any  appeared  in  the  papers." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  I  had  not  heard  of  it.  The 
most  startling  proposition  of  the  kind  is  that  which 
Dr.  Briggs  has  advanced  in  the  '  North  American 
Review.'  Did  you  read  his  article?  He  proposes 
that  all  the  Christian  denominations  unite  under  the 
leadership  of  the  Pope,  whose  powers  should  be  re- 
stricted by  a  sort  of  constitution.  In  other  words, 
that  Christendom  should  treat  the  Pope  as  the  Rus- 
sian Duma  is  now  treating  the  Tzar." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  Does  he  suggest  that 
the  Pope  retain  his  present  absolute  power  in  the 
Roman  Church  ?  It  would  be  a  very  interesting  situ- 
ation should  the  rigid  organisation  remain  unimpaired 
in  the  midst  of  a  freer  larger  one." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  Perhaps  that  might  be  a  first 
step." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  I  think  it  would  be 
an  essential  point  to  the  Pope.  He  might  be  willing 
to  take  a  general  supervision,  or  nominal  headship, 
over  all  Christendom ;  but  he  certainly  would  be  un- 
willing to  abandon  or  curtail  his  power  where  it  now 
exists." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  I  am  not  particularly  anxious 
to  have  him  take  supervision  over  me.  The  scheme 
is  so  far  beyond  what  anyone  dreams  is  possible 


276  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

that  I  cannot  believe  it  will  ever  receive  serious 
consideration." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  To  one  who  knows  either 
the  Vatican,  or  the  thorough-going  non-conforming 
Protestant  it  would  seem  very  unlikely  of  realisation. 
But  do  you  know,  Mr.  F — ,  I  think  there  is  a  cer- 
tain type  of  churchman  to  whom  it  would  appeal. 
I  should  not  be  at  all  surprised  to  see  some  one  or 
other  of  your  earnest,  well-intentioned  Bishops  advo- 
cate it." 

THE  AUTHOE  :  "  I  fancy  he  would  receive  little 
encouragement  from  Rome  —  beyond  being  invited 
to  return  to  '  The  True  Mother  Church.'  " 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  E — ,  do  you  realise  that 
you  were  to  have  given  us  a  lead  this  evening,  and 
that,  so  far,  you  have  hardly  said  a  word?  It  is 
too  late  for  us  to  expect  anyone  else,  I  am  afraid,  so 
there  is  no  use  of  waiting." 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  It  is  rather  a  pity  to  interrupt 
the  pleasant  conversation  we  are  already  having.  No 
'  lead  '  was  necessary.  I  had  purposed,  it  is  true,  to 
speak  to-night  of  the  Eastern  view  of  evolution,  which 
supplements,  in  what  seems  to  me  important  par- 
ticulars, the  present  Western  doctrine  and  throws 
new  light  upon  its  application  to  religion.  But  all 
our  evolutionists  are  absent,  and,  as  I  particularly 
wanted  the  criticism  of  the  Zoologist  and  Biologist, 
I  think  we  had  best  let  this  subject  wait.  Let  me 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES  277 

speak,  instead,  of  two  books  I  have  been  reading 
recently,  and  which  present  interesting  parallels  both 
with  each  other  and  with  what  the  Editor  has  told 
us  of  Dr.  Inge's  volume  of  lectures.  The  one  is 
'  The  New  Theology/  by  the  Eev.  R  J.  Campbell, 
a  Congregationalist  Minister,  whose  Church  is  the 
City  Temple  in  London.  The  other  is  the  '  Sub- 
stance of  Faith/  by  Sir  Oliver  Lodge,  scientist  and 
Principal  of  the  Birmingham  University.  Each  is 
original;  each  is  the  mature  work  of  a  man  who  has 
risen  to  high  place  in  his  own  calling;  and,  though 
approached  from  such  totally  different  directions,  the 
conclusions  of  both  are  in  essential  points  the  same. 
That  upon  which  they  agree  may,  therefore,  be  fairly 
taken  as  typical  of  the  best  thought  of  these  times 
upon  religious  questions. 

"  If  we  begin  with  Campbell's  work,  we  find  him 
telling  us  that  the  ISTew  Theology  is  neither  new  nor 
of  his  invention,  but  is  essentially  Christian  in  the 
fullest  sense.  It  is,  indeed,  an  untrammelled  return 
to  Christian  sources  in  the  light  of  modern  thought, 
its  starting-point  being  a  re-emphasis  of  the  Chris- 
tian belief  in  the  Divine  immanence  in  the  universe 
and  in  mankind.  It  holds  that  we  know  nothing, 
and  can  know  nothing,  of  the  Infinite  Cause  whence 
all  things  proceed  except  as  we  read  Him  in  His 
universe  and  in  our  own  souls.  The  appeal  to  ex- 
perience, the  return  to  nature,  only  bring  us  closer 


278  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

to  the  thought  and  feeling  of  Jesus,  and  the  recent 
great  growth  in  natural  knowledge  brings  out  His 
teaching  with  fresh  lustre  and  power.  It  is  the  im- 
manent God  with  which  Christianity  has  to  do,  and 
if  this  fact  is  once  fully  grasped,  it  will  simplify  all 
our  conceptions  and  give  us  a  working  faith.  It  is 
this  faith  which  Mr.  Campbell  seeks  to  make  clear. 

"  The  word  '  God '  stands,  of  course,  for  many 
things,  but  to  Mr.  Campbell  it  stands  for  the  un- 
caused Cause  of  all  existence,  the  unitary  principle 
implied  in  all  multiplicity.  Everyone,  of  neces- 
sity, we  are  told,  must  believe  in  this  unity;  and 
wrapped  up  in  this  belief  is  the  implication  that  the 
finite  universe  can  be  but  one  means  to  the  self- 
realisation  of  the  infinite.  No  part  of  the  universe 
has  value  in  and  for  itself  alone,  as  no  part  is 
wholly  mean  or  worthless.  Each  has  value  only  as 
it  expresses  God.  To  see  one  form  break  up  and 
another  take  its  place  is  no  calamity,  however  terrible 
it  may  appear,  for  it  only  means  that  the  life  con- 
tained in  that  form  has  gone  back  to  the  universal 
life,  and  will  express  itself  again  in  some  higher  and 
better  form.  To  all  eternity  God  is  what  He  is  and 
never  can  be  other,  but  it  will  take  Him  to  all  eter- 
nity to  live  out  all  that  He  is.  To  think  of  the  uni- 
verse and  of  God  in  this  way  is  an  inspiration  and 
a  help  in  the  doing  of  the  humblest  tasks.  It  redeems 
life  from  the  dominion  of  the  sordid  and  the  com- 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES  279 

monplace,  and  gives  it  divine  significance.  To  put  it, 
Campbell  says,  in  homely  phrase,  '  God  is  getting  at 
something/  and  we  must  be  labourers  together  with 
Him. 

"  This  will  serve,  I  think,  to  make  clear  the  concept 
of  God  as  put  forward  by  Mr.  Campbell;  not,  be 
it  remembered,  as  any  new  view  of  his  own,  but  as 
that  interpretation  of  Christian  teaching  which  he 
believes  is  animating  liberal  theology  throughout  the 
whole  of  Christendom,  quite  irrespective  of  sect  or 
denomination,  and  nowhere  more  marked  than  among 
the  Roman  Catholics.  Let  me  turn  now  to  what  the 
exponent  of  modern  science  has  to  say  upon  the  same 
high  theme. 

"  In  the  view  of  Sir  Oliver  Lodge,  the  law  of  the 
universe  and  the  will  of  God  are  to  be  regarded  as 
in  some  sort  synonymous  terms.  It  is  impossible, 
he  says,  properly  to  define  such  a  term  as  '  God/  but 
it  is  permissible  reverently  to  use  the  term  for  a 
mode  of  regarding  the  universe  as  invested  with 
what  in  human  beings  we  call  personality,  conscious- 
ness, and  other  forms  of  intelligence,  emotion,  and 
will.  These  attributes,  undoubtedly  possessed  by  a 
part,  are  not  to  be  denied  to  the  whole,  however 
little  we  may  be  able  as  yet  to  form  a  clear  concep- 
tion of  their  larger  meaning.  We  are  a  part  of  the 
universe,  and  the  universe  is  a  part  of  God.  Even 
we  also,  therefore,  have  a  divine  nature  and  may 


280  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

truly  be  called  sons  and  co-workers  with  God,  and, 
as  such,  are  heirs  to  that  inner  joy  with  which 
achievement  is  ever  irradiated,  and  which  the  Divine 
Life  ever  renews. 

"  The  intelligence  which  guides  things,  Lodge  con- 
tinues, is  not  something  external  to  the  scheme, 
clumsily  interfering  with  it  by  muscular  action,  as 
we  are  constrained  to  do  when  we  interfere  at  all, 
but  is  something  within  and  inseparable  from  it,  as 
human  thought  is  within  and  inseparable  from  the 
action  of  our  brains.  In  some  partially  similar  way 
he  conceives  that  the  multifarious  processes  in  nature, 
with  neither  the  origin  nor  maintenance  of  which  we 
have  had  anything  to  do,  must  be  guided  and  con- 
trolled by  some  Thought  and  Purpose,  immanent  in 
everything,  but  revealed  only  to  those  with  suffi- 
ciently awakened  perceptions.  To  the  higher  members 
of  our  race  the  intelligence  and  purpose,  underlying 
the  whole  mystery  of  existence,  elaborating  the  details 
of  evolution,  are  clearly  visible. 

"  We  see,  therefore,  that  the  processes  of  evolution 
are  regarded  by  both  Campbell  and  Lodge  as  the 
gradual  unfolding  of  the  Divine  Thought,  or  Logos, 
throughout  the  universe ;  that  both  agree  in  the  gen- 
eral sense  in  which  they  use  the  word  God;  and 
agree  also  in  emphasising  the  Divine  immanence  in 
us  and  in  all  things. 

"  I  have  quoted  Mr.  Campbell  as  saying  that  we 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES          281 

can  only  know  God  as  we  read  Him  in  our  own 
hearts  or  in  the  universe.  We  can  only  interpret  the 
universe  in  terms  of  our  own  consciousness.  In  other 
words,  man  is  a  microcosm  of  the  universe.  The 
so-called  material  world  is  our  consciousness  of 
reality  exercising  itself  along  a  strictly  limited  plane. 
It  is  all  a  question  of  consciousness.  We  can  know 
just  so  much  of  the  universe  as  our  consciousness  is 
open  to.  The  larger  and  fuller  a  consciousness  be- 
comes the  more  it  can  grasp  and  hold  of  the  con- 
sciousness of  God,  the  fundamental  reality  of  our 
being  as  of  everything  else. 

"  We  have  an  opening  into  larger  fields  of  con- 
sciousness, Mr.  Campbell  reminds  us,  in  our  knowl- 
edge of  what  is  called  the  subconscious  mind,  or  the 
supraliminal  consciousness.  Our  discovery  of  its  ex- 
istence has  taught  us  that  our  ordinary  consciousness 
is  but  a  small  corner  of  our  larger  consciousness.  It 
has  been  well  compared  to  an  island  in  the  Pacific, 
which  is  really  the  summit  of  a  mountain  whose  base 
is  miles  below  the  surface.  Summit  and  base  are 
one,  and  yet  no  one  realises  when  standing  on  the 
little  island  that  he  is  perched  at  the  very  top  of  a 
mountain  peak.  So  it  is  with  our  everyday  con- 
sciousness of  ourselves;  we  find  it  difficult  to  realise 
that  this  consciousness  is  not  all  there  is  of  us. 
But  when  we  come  to  examine  the  facts  the  conclu- 
sion is  irresistible,  that  of  our  truer,  deeper  being 


282  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

we  are  ordinarily  quite  unconscious.  Beyond  the 
ordinary  self  whom  we  are  familiar  with,  there  is  a 
larger  self,  vastly  greater  than  we  know.  This  larger 
self  is  in  all  probability  a  perfect  and  eternal  spir- 
itual being  integral  to  the  being  of  God.  The  sur- 
face self  is  the  incarnation  of  some  portion  of  that 
true  eternal  self  which  is  one  with  God. 

"  Sir  Oliver  Lodge  also  has  much  to  say  of  the 
infinite  possibilities  of  wider  consciousness  in  man, 
finding  the  true  self  something  far  larger  and  higher 
than  our  present  thought  of  ourselves,  limited  and 
shut  in  as  it  is  by  incarnation  in  animal  bodies. 
This  incarnation,  he  thinks,  accounts  for  the  double 
nature  of  man,  —  the  inherited  animal  tendencies, 
and  the  inspired  spiritual  aspirations.  He  explains 
it  in  some  such  way  as  this:  Our  body  is  an  indi- 
vidual collocation  of  cells,  which  began  to  form  and 
grow  together  at  a  certain  date,  and  will  presently 
be  dispersed;  but  the  constructing  and  dominating 
reality,  called  our  (  soul/  did  not  then  begin  to  exist ; 
nor  will  it  cease  with  bodily  decay.  Interaction  with 
the  material  world  then  began,  and  will  then  cease, 
but  we  ourselves  in  essence  are  persistent,  if  our 
character  be  sufficiently  developed  to  possess  a  reality 
of  its  own.  In  our  present  state,  truly,  the  memory 
of  our  past  is  imperfect  or  non-existent;  but  when 
we  waken  and  shake  off  the  tenement  of  matter,  re- 
joining the  larger  self,  of  which  only  a  part  is  now 


SIGNS    OF   THE    TIMES  283 

manifested  in  mortal  flesh,  our  memory  and  con- 
sciousness may  enlarge,  too,  and  the  continuity  be- 
come clear.  It  is  here  that  he  quotes  Wordsworth : 

Our  birth  is  but  a  sleep  and  a  forgetting : 
The  Soul  that  rises  with  us,  our  life's  Star, 

Hath  had  elsewhere  its  setting, 
And  cometh  from  afar: 

Not  in  entire  forgetfulness, 

And  not  in  utter  nakedness, 
But  trailing  clouds  of  glory  do  we  come 

From  God,  who  is  our  home. 

"  The  idea  of  gradual  incarnation  —  growing  as 
the  brain  and  body  grow,  but  never  attaining  any 
approach  to  completeness  even  in  the  greatest  of  men 
—  seems  to  Lodge  an  opening  in  the  direction  of 
truth.  In  this  view,  the  portion  of  the  larger  self 
incarnated  in  an  infant  or  a  feeble-minded  person 
is  but  small:  in  normal  cases,  more  appears  as  the 
body  is  fitted  to  receive  it.  In  some  cases  much 
appears,  thus  constituting  a  great  man;  while  in 
others,  again,  a  link  of  occasional  communication  is 
left  open  between  the  part  and  the  whole  —  produc- 
ing what  we  call  e  genius.'  Second-childishness  is 
the  gradual  abandonment  of  the  material  vehicle,  as 
it  gets  worn  out  or  damaged.  But  during  the  episode 
of  this  life  man  is  never  a  complete  self,  his  roots 
are  in  another  order  of  being,  he  is  moving  about  in 
worlds  not  realised,  he  is  as  if  walking  in  a  vain 
shadow  and  disquieting  himself  in  vain. 


284  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

"  Thus  the  second  point  of  agreement  between 
the  minister  and  the  scientist  is  this  dual  doctrine 
of  the  fragmentary  character  of  our  personal  every- 
day consciousness,  and  the  larger  self,  which  is  never 
wholly  incarnated,  but  from  which  we  draw  our  life 
and  genius. 

"  Mr.  Campbell  uses  our  knowledge  of  the  sub- 
conscious mind  to  illustrate  two  other  important  reli- 
gious principles:  first,  the  fundamental  unity  of  the 
whole  human  race  —  Universal  Brotherhood  as  it 
has  been  termed  elsewhere  —  and,  secondly,  the  im- 
mortality of  the  true  self  through  a  conscious  union 
with  God.  Ultimately,  he  says,  your  being  and 
mine  are  one,  and  we  shall  come  to  know  it.  Indi- 
viduality only  has  meaning  in  relation  to  the  whole, 
and  individual  consciousness  can  only  be  fulfilled 
by  expanding  until  it  embraces  the  whole.  Nothing 
that  exists  in  our  consciousness  now  and  constitutes 
our  self-knowledge  will  ever  be  obliterated  or  ever 
can  be,  but  in  a  higher  state  of  existence  we  shall 
realise  it  to  be  a  part  of  the  universal  stock.  '  I  shall 
not  cease  to  be  I,  nor  you  to  be  you ;  but  there  must 
be  a  region  of  experience  where  we  shall  find  that 
you  and  I  are  one.' 

"  If  this  doctrine  implies  that  we  are  one  with 
each  other,  it  implies  also  that  the  highest  of  all 
selves,  the  ultimate  Self  of  each  of  us  and  of  the 
universe,  is  God.  The  New  Testament  speaks  of 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES  285 

man  as  body,  soul,  and  spirit.  The  body  is  the 
thought-form  through  which  the  individuality  finds 
expression  on  our  present  limited  plane;  the  soul 
is  a  man's  consciousness  of  himself  as  apart  from  all 
the  rest  of  existence  and  even  from  God  —  it  is  ( the 
bay  seeing  itself  as  the  bay  and  not  as  the  ocean ' ; 
the  spirit  is  the  true  being  thus  limited  and  expressed 
—  it  is  the  deathless  Divine  within  us.  The  soul, 
therefore,  is  what  we  make  it;  the  spirit  we  can 
neither  make  nor  mar,  for  it  is  at  once  our  being  and 
God's.  The  being  of  God  is  a  complex  unity,  con- 
taining within  itself  and  harmonising  every  form  of 
self -consciousness  that  can  possibly  exist  —  yours  and 
mine  and  all  that  is.  No  one  need  be  afraid,  Mr. 
Campbell  holds,  that  in  believing  this  he  is  assent- 
ing to  the  final  obliteration  of  his  own  personality. 
No  form  of  self-consciousness  can  ever  perish.  It 
completes  itself  in  becoming  infinite,  but  it  cannot 
be  destroyed. 

"  With  this  I  would  like  to  compare  what  Sir 
Oliver  Lodge  has  to  say  in  addressing  himself  to  the 
question  as  to  whether  we  ever  again  live  on  earth. 
It  appears  unlikely,  in  the  view  he  has  sketched,  that 
a  given  developed  individual  will  appear  again  in 
unmodified  form.  If  my  present  self  is  a  fraction 
of  a  larger  self,  some  other  fraction  of  that  larger 
self  may  readily  be  thought  of  as  arriving,  —  to  gain 
practical  experience  in  the  world  of  matter,  and  to 


286  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

return  with  developed  character  to  the  whole  whence 
it  sprang.  And  this  operation  may  be  repeated 
frequently;  but  these  hypothetical  fractional  ap- 
pearances can  hardly,  he  thinks,  be  spoken  of  as 
reincarnations. 

"  The  discussion  of  the  higher  self  in  man  leads 
to  a  consideration  of  the  personality  of  Jesus.  In 
the  view  of  the  New  Theology  the  character  of  Jesus 
represents  the  highest  standard  for  human  attain- 
ment; it  is  an  ideal  already  manifested  in  history. 
If  the  life  of  Jesus  was  lived  consistently,  from  first 
to  last,  with  perfect  love,  directed  toward  impersonal 
ends,  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  and  do  the  utmost  for 
the  whole,  what  can  we  call  it  except  divine?  Mr. 
Campbell  would  restrict  the  word  '  divine '  to  the 
kind  of  consciousness  which  knows  itself  to  be,  and 
rejoices  to  be,  the  expression  of  a  love  which  is  a 
consistent  self-giving  to  the  universal  life.  Jesus 
was  divine  because  His  life  was  governed  wholly  by 
this  principle.  In  Jesus  humanity  was  divinity,  and 
divinity  humanity.  Christendom  recognises  the  life 
of  Jesus  as  the  standard  of  human  excellence.  But 
this  is  not  to  say  that  we  shall  never  reach  that 
standard  too ;  quite  the  contrary.  We  must  reach  it 
in  order  to  fulfil  our  destiny  and  to  crown  and  com- 
plete the  work  of  Jesus.  Traditional  orthodoxy 
would  restrict  the  description  e  God  manifest  in  the 
flesh '  to  Jesus  alone.  The  New  Theology  would  ex- 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES          287 

tend  it  in  a  lesser  degree  to  all  humanity,  and  would 
maintain  that  in  the  end  it  will  be  as  true  of  every 
individual  soul  as  ever  it  was  of  Jesus :  '  as  thou, 
Father,  art  in  me,  and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may 
be  one  in  us  ...  I  in  them  and  thou  in  me,  that 
they  may  be  made  perfect  in  one.' 

"  Mr.  Campbell  argues  that  the  reason  why  the 
name  of  Jesus  has  such  power  in  the  world  to-day 
is  because  a  perfectly  noble  and  unselfish  life  was 
crowned  by  a  perfectly  sacrificial  death.  The  life 
and  death  together  were  a  perfect  self -offering,  the 
offering  of  the  unit  to  the  whole,  the  individual  to 
the  race,  the  Son  to  the  Father,  '  and  therefore  the 
greatest  manifestation  of  the  innermost  of  God  that 
has  ever  been  made  to  the  world.'  In  this  self- 
offering  was  the  perfect  manifestation  of  the  eternal 
Christ,  the  humanity  which  reveals  the  innermost  of 
God,  the  humanity  which  is  love.  To  partake  of  the 
benefits  of  that  Atonement  we  have  to  unite  ourselves 
to  it ;  '  to  die  to  self  with  Christ  and  rise  with  Him 
into  the  experience  of  larger,  fuller  life,  the  life 
eternal.' 

"  While  the  resurrection  is  a  symbol,  the  New 
Theology  holds  that  it  is  also  a  fact,  taking  for 
granted  the  broad  fact  that  without  a  belief  in  a 
resurrection  Christianity  could  not  have  made  a 
start  at  all.  The  disciples  must  have  become  con- 
vinced that  they  had  seen  Jesus  face  to  face  after 


288  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

the  world  believed  Him  to  be  dead  and  buried. 
How  are  we  to  account  for  this  confidence  of  theirs 
that  they  had  once  more  looked  upon  the  face  of 
Jesus  ? 

"  In  the  view  of  the  New  Theology  insistence  upon 
the  impossibility  of  a  physical  resurrection  presumes 
an  essential  distinction  between  spirit  and  matter, 
which  it  cannot  admit.  The  philosophy  underlying 
the  New  Theology  may  be  called  a  monistic  idealism, 
and  monistic  idealism  recognises  no  fundamental 
distinction  between  matter  and  spirit.  The  funda- 
mental reality  is  consciousness.  The  so-called  ma- 
terial world  is  the  product  of  consciousness  exercising 
itself  along  a  certain  limited  plane;  the  next  stage 
of  consciousness  above  this  is  not  an  absolute  break 
with  it,  although  it  is  an  expansion  of  experience  or 
readjustment  of  focus.  '  Admitting  that  individual 
consciousness  persists  beyond  the  change  called  death, 
it  only  means  that  such  consciousness  is  being  exer- 
cised along  another  plane;  from  a  three-dimensional 
it  has  entered  a  four-dimensional  world.  This  new 
world  is  no  less  and  no  more  material  than  the 
present;  it  is  all  a  question  of  the  range  of  con- 
sciousness.' .  .  .  '  Does  this  throw  any  light/  Mr. 
Campbell  asks,  '  upon  the  mysterious  appearances  and 
disappearances  of  the  body  of  Jesus  ?  Here  we  have 
a  being  whose  consciousness  belongs  to  the  fourth- 
dimensional  plane,  adjusting  Himself  to  the  capacity 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES  289 

of  those  on  a  three-dimensional  plane  for  the  sake 
of  proving  beyond  dispute  that  — 

Life  is  ever  lord  of  death, 

And  love  can  never  lose  its  own/ 

This  seems  to  Mr.  Campbell  the  most  reasonable  ex- 
planation of  the  post-resurrection  appearances  of 
Jesus,  and  the  impression  produced  by  them  on  the 
minds  of  His  disciples.  It  is  a  matter  of  no  small 
interest  that  such  views  are  to-day  advanced  from 
orthodox  pulpits. 

"  It  must,  of  course,  be  remembered  that  Mr.  Camp- 
bell addresses  himself  with  persuasive  reasonableness 
to  the  many  doubts  and  objections  which  his  views 
cannot  fail  to  arouse.  To  do  justice  to  his  thought 
and  method  you  must  go  to  his  book.  I  have  tried 
only  to  present  certain  aspects  of  his  teaching,  using 
his  own  words  whenever  I  could  recall  them. 

"  With  Mr.  Campbell's  theory  of  the  Atonement 
and  resurrection  may  be  compared  Sir  Oliver  Lodge's 
statement  that  the  idea  of  Redemption  or  Regenera- 
tion, in  its  highest  and  most  Christian  form,  is 
applicable  to  both  soul  and  body.  The  life  of  Christ 
shows  us  that  the  whole  man  can  be  regenerated  as 
he  stands;  that  we  have  not  to  wait  for  a  future 
state,  that  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  in  our  midst 
and  may  be  assimilated  by  us  here  and  now.  The 
term  '  salvation '  should  not  be  limited  to  the  soul, 

19 


290  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

but  should  apply  to  the  whole  man.  What  kind  of 
transfiguration  may  be  possible,  or  may  have  been 
possible,  in  the  case  of  a  perfectly  emancipated  and 
glorified  body,  we  do  not  yet  know. 

"  The  most  essential  element  in  Christianity  is  its 
conception  of  a  human  God;  of  a  God,  in  the  first 
place,  not  apart  from  the  universe,  not  outside  it 
and  distinct  from  it,  but  immanent  in  it;  yet  not 
immanent  only,  but  actually  incarnate,  incarnate  in 
it  and  revealed  in  the  Incarnation.  The  nature  of 
God  is  displayed  in  part  by  everything,  to  those  who 
have  eyes  to  see,  but  it  is  displayed  most  clearly  and 
fully  by  the  highest  type  of  existence,  the  highest 
experience  to  which  the  process  of  evolution  has  so 
far  opened  our  senses.  The  Humanity  of  God,  the 
Divinity  of  man,  is  to  Lodge  the  essence  of  the 
Christian  revelation. 

"  This  is  the  central  thought  of  Sir  Oliver  Lodge, 
speaking  as  a  representative  of  the  foremost  science 
of  our  time.  One  cannot  fail  to  see  that,  point  by 
point,  he  is  teaching  the  same  doctrine  as  Mr.  Camp- 
bell: the  immanent  God;  the  personal  self,  as  only 
a  fragment  of  the  higher  self;  the  higher  self  as 
a  link,  a  stepping-stone  to  the  divine  consciousness; 
the  incarnation  of  Jesus,  His  life  and  death,  as  rev- 
elations of  divine  consciousness,  and  therefore  a 
prophecy  of  that  future  when  '  we  shall  be  like  Him 
in  glory.'  The  thoughts,  the  very  words,  are  the  same. 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES          291 

Not  that  either  borrows  at  all  from  the  other,  but 
the  same  Spirit  is  blowing  on  the  hearts  of  both, 
telling  of  a  new  awakening  of  the  religious  life  of 
mankind." 

When  the  Author  ceased  speaking  there  was  a 
moment's  pause,  which  the  Mathematician  seemed 
content  to  let  pass  in  silence,  while  the  Author  waited 
for  comment  or  question.  It  came  first  from  his 
neighbour,  the  Social  Philosopher. 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  What  reason  is  given 
for  the  belief  in  a  God  above  the  universe  ?  What 
reason,  that  is,  other  than  that  one  would  like  to 
believe  in  it  ?  Does  either  Campbell  or  Lodge  give 
his  reasons  for  this?  I  would  very  much  like  to 
know  what  they  are." 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  To  both  Campbell  and  Lodge  such 
a  belief  is  a  matter  of  obvious  necessity,  evident 
upon  the  face  of  existence ;  and  they  so  explain  their 
use  of  the  term  '  God '  as  to  make  the  denial  of  His 
reality  impossible." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER :  "If  I  remember 
rightly,  you  said  that  Campbell  used  it  to  stand  for 
an  '  uncaused  Cause  of  existence  '  and  again  as  '  the 
unity  implied  by  diversity.'  I  fail  to  see  that  such 
an  implication  is  at  all  compelled,  or  that  there  is 
in  this  the  least  reason  for  the  belief  in  a  ruling 
power  or  God  above  the  universe." 


292  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN :  "I  do  not  think  that 
Campbell  does  believe  in  a  God  above  the  universe, 
in  the  sense  of  being  set  over  against  the  universe. 
His  whole  emphasis  is  upon  the  immanence  of  God. 
He  finds  his  God  within  the  universe;  behind  the 
visible  universe  would  perhaps  express  his  thought, 
though  not  behind  or  beyond  existence.  As  thought 
lies  behind  or  within  speech,  or  love  behind  an  act 
of  service,  in  no  way  to  be  separated  from  it,  so, 
I  understand,  Campbell  pictures  God  within  the 
universe." 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  He  repeatedly  states  that  we  can 
know  God  only  as  revealed  within  the  universe." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  But  why  within  ? 
Why  above  ?  Why  behind  ?  Why  is  there  anything 
to  be  i-mTna.-np.nt  ?  Why  is  there  anything  other  than 
the  universe  as  we  know  it  ?  Why  is  not  existence 
just  what  it  appears  to  be;  a  haphazard  congeries 
and  conflict  of  forces  —  good,  bad,  and  indifferent  — 
striking  from  moment  to  moment  a  mechanical  re- 
sultant? Is  what  we  have  listened  to  more  than  a 
naive  assumption  that  things  are  as  we  would  like 
to  have  them  ? 

"  I  thought  these  discussions  were  meant  to  be 
critical." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Existence  does  not  appear 
to  me  as  you  suggest.  Indeed,  I  think  such  an 
hypothesis  is  as  opposed  to  the  scientific  view  as  to 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES          293 

the  religious.  Is  not  the  whole  message  of  science 
that  the  more  deeply  we  learn  of  nature  the  less  of 
haphazard  or  of  accident  appears,  and  the  more 
clearly  the  universality  of  law  is  revealed  ? " 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  Of  course.  We  all 
know  that.  But  law  itself  may  be  nothing  but  the 
mechanical  resultant  of  the  lawless  action  of  a  mul- 
tiplicity of  independent  units  and  movements  —  the 
mathematical  average,  as  it  were,  which  seems  fixed 
and  absolute  only  because  the  deviations  from  the 
norm  fall  within  the  error  of  our  observation.  No 
proof,  or  even  attempt  at  proof,  has  been  here  ad- 
vanced that  the  universe  is  not  a  mere  aggregate,  let 
us  say,  of  minutest  atoms  whose  free  individual 
action  escapes  our  perceptions;  or  that  our  so-called 
laws  of  science  are  anything  but  crude  statements  of 
the  present  average  resultant  of  their  interactions." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Even  such  a  theory  as 
that  does  not  remove  the  universe  from  the  dominion 
of  law.  The  laws  of  integration  take  the  place  of 
those  of  differentiation.  The  doctrine  of  averages, 
the  laws  of  chance,  make  chance  inoperative.  The 
norm  alone  persists,  and  though,  perhaps,  never  per- 
fectly conformed  to  in  any  single  state  or  moment, 
is  still  the  true  reality  expressing  the  nature  of  the 
aggregate.  Chance,  as  chance,  forever  nullifies  it- 
self, as,  it  seems  to  me,  human  wilfulness  and  sin 
must  do.  If  for  ten  thousand  times  I  drop  this  scrap 


294  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

of  paper  on  the  floor  and  mark  its  fall,  and  if  I  then 
find  its  average  position  six  inches  to  my  right,  I 
know  it  was  not  chance  that  caused  this,  but  either 
the  way  in  which  I  dropped  it  or  a  current  of  air. 
And  if  in  another  ten  thousand  falls  I  find  its  mean 
resting  place  to  my  left,  I  know  the  draft  has  changed. 
Change  and  growth  and  evolution  can  come  only 
from  directed  force,  either  from  within  or  without, 
but  never  from  chance.  The  law  of  averages  reveals 
the  norm,  and  the  norm  is  the  reality,  which  grows 
and  evolves  and  persists.  If  we  are  to  view  our- 
selves as  dice,  we  must  realise  also  that  we  are  loaded, 
and  that  the  centre  of  our  mass  may  little  by  little  be 
shifted." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  I  do  not  think  you 
can  put  forward  the  doctrine  of  averages  as  the 
equivalent  of  the  God  of  religion.  What  I  queried 
was  the  reasons  for  the  belief  in  God." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  am  proposing  no  such 
substitution.  I  am  trying  to  say  that  it  is  mathe- 
matically impossible  that  the  haphazard  or  chance 
action  of  independent  units  could  ever  have  produced 
the  universe  or  account  for  anything  at  all  save  the 
most  transient  aspects.  The  doctrine  of  averages 
reveals  the  impotency  of  chance,  that  its  results  must 
be  nil,  and,  in  its  neutrality,  the  nature  of  being 
works  unimpeded  and  undisturbed.  This  Nature  of 
Being  Campbell  and  Lodge  call  God.  Something  is. 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES          295 

Something  has  produced  and  sustains  the  phenomena 
of  the  universe;  produced  you  and  me,  our  ideals 
and  aspirations,  and  all  around  us.  If  it  be  not 
chance  it  must  be  the  noumena  of  existence,  and  this 
we  can  call  God.  You  spoke  of  the  universe  as  we 
know  it.  But  we  can  know  it  in  various  ways  and 
under  many  aspects.  In  even  the  humblest  and  mean- 
est of  things  —  the  most  crudely  wrong  —  there  is 
still  a  divine  aspect,  to  be  known  if  we  care  to  look 
for  it.  Mind  is ;  purpose  is ;  nobility,  truth,  beauty, 
and  love  are ;  above  all,  the  infinite  is.  If  we  know 
this  aspect  of  the  universe,  are  we  not  knowing  what 
Campbell  and  Lodge  mean  by  the  immanence  of 
God?" 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  The  trouble  is  that 
this  aspect  is  relatively  so  insignificant.  Your  argu- 
ment identifies  God  with  a  single  aspect  or  tendency 
of  life,  entirely  neglecting  the  far  wider  realms  which 
appear  to  show  no  moral  qualities  at  all.  Yet  you 
persist  in  speaking  of  this  narrow  aspect  as  though 
it  were  all  inclusive  or  the  ultimate  reality,  and  of 
the  universe  as  ultimately  unified  in  an  infinite 
God." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  That  is  the  way  I  feel. 
I  feel  that  that  aspect  is  closer  to  the  nature  of  things, 
more  deeply  and  fundamentally  real  than  all  else. 
I  think  it  would  be  very  easy  to  show  that  it  cannot 
be  called  e  insignificant/  but  I  do  not  see  what  argu- 


296  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

merit  could  prove  its  all-inclusiveness.  That  seems 
to  me  a  matter  of  feeling  which  experience  can 
justify  but  which  logic  cannot  demonstrate.  In  my 
own  nature,  for  example,  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  my  faults  and  failures  are  more  often  in  evi- 
dence than  my  virtues.  Yet  I  cannot  feel  that  the 
former  are  in  any  such  vital  way  myself  as  are  the 
latter.  And  even  in  my  faults  I  can  sometimes  see 
the  principle  of  good,  —  distorted,  unbalanced,  run 
riot  into  evil,  but  still  capable  of  transmutation  into 
good,  rather  than  needing  total  eradication.  So  also 
it  seems  to  me  of  the  whole,  of  which  I  am  a  part." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER:  "  If  it  were  a  matter 
of  feeling,  we  might  all  agree.  But  our  feeling  needs 
the  justification  of  reason.  And  that  appears  as  yet 
sadly  lacking." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  Is  not  your  own  argument,  — 
that  this  aspect  of  existence  corresponds  with  our 
own  ideals,  and  so  should  for  that  reason,  if  for 
that  alone,  be  cleaved  to  and  followed,  —  sufficient  to 
make  us  base  our  lives  upon  this  feeling  of  the  deeper 
reality  of  the  good?  To  the  extent  that  we  do  this 
we  gain  the  justification  of  experience,  if  not  of 
logic." 

THE  PHILOSOPHER:  "  I  also  want  to  speak  to  I — 's 
point  We  assume,  I  think  much  too  readily,  that 
a  choice  must  lie  between  Christian  cosmogony  and 
a  mechanical  solution  of  the  universe  which  will  leave 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES  297 

no  room  for  religion.  This  choice  is  not  in  fact 
forced.  First,  because  science  is  not  in  essence  ir- 
religious ;  and  secondly,  because  there  are  many  other 
religious  accounts  of  the  origin  of  things  besides  the 
Christian.  We  give  far  too  little  thought  to  the  great 
pagan  systems. 

"As  most  of  you  know,  I  have  been  devoting  a  good 
deal  of  time  in  the  last  ten  years  to  a  fairly  close 
and  critical  study  of  Aristotle.  At  first  I  was  at- 
tracted by  his  logic,  but  of  late  I  am  finding  that  the 
moral  and  religious  aspect  of  his  philosophy  is  grow- 
ing more  and  more  important  to  me;  and  I  confess 
to  being  puzzled,  and  not  a  little  amazed,  at  the  com- 
pleteness of  the  neglect  which  has  befallen  it.  The 
Greek  ideals  of  art  and  of  beauty  have  endured. 
Their  sculpture,  their  temples,  their  poetry  remain 
as  inspirations  to  our  later  age.  Their  logic  and 
their  science  are  the  foundations  of  our  own.  But 
their  religious  attitude  has  been  forgotten,  and  their 
metaphysics  buried  in  an  obscurity  their  temples  have 
escaped. 

"  We  look  back  upon  the  Greek  Gods  with  the 
half-pitying,  half-patronising  feelings  of  maturity 
for  youth  —  as  though  these  were  unformed,  childish 
imaginings  we  had  outgrown.  In  truth,  few  of  us 
have  ever  taken  the  trouble  to  understand  them,  to 
comprehend  the  interpretation  of  the  universe  for 
which  they  stood,  or  to  master  the  developed  and 


298  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

co-ordinated  scheme  of  life  given  us  by  such  a  thinker 
as  Aristotle.  It  is  just  this  scheme  of  things  which 
I  should  like  to  suggest  as  a  possible  solution  for  the 
Social  Philosopher's  difficulties. 

"  The  pagan  Gods  did  not  create  the  universe,  they 
are  its  children;  responsible  not  for  its  existence, 
but  for  its  law  and  order.  Through  the  Gods  order 
came  from  chaos.  Upon  them  depend  all  the  ordered 
sequences  of  nature;  the  courses  of  the  stars,  the 
growing  of  a  flower,  the  music  of  a  stream,  or  the 
fortunes  of  man.  They  stand  within  the  universe, 
neither  behind  nor  above  it;  transcended  by  reality, 
not  transcending  it.  I  used  to  be  shocked  at  this 
limitation  of  worship  —  this  humanising  of  the  Gods. 
It  seemed  to  me  a  dreadful  thing  to  think  of  some  of 
them  as  living  here  upon  Olympus,  close  to  man  and 
like  him,  sometimes  to  be  met  and  talked  with,  their 
friendship  or  enmity  obtained.  I  used  to  be  shocked 
at  the  thought  that  the  Gods  laughed.  But  recently 
I  have  missed  these  things  in  Christianity;  missed 
the  sense  of  humour  in  paganism;  missed  its  close- 
ness and  likeness  to  its  Gods. 

"  The  Ultimate  Reality,  the  Absolute  of  Philos- 
ophy, the  Monistic  God  as  a  '  causeless  Cause/  must 
ever  remain  unknown  and  unknowable.  However 
deeply  we  penetrate  into  the  workings  of  nature,  how- 
ever exact  and  wide  our  knowledge,  however  high 
our  meditations  rise,  beyond  us  is  Mystery  —  the 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES 

mystery  of  Being  itself,  that  anything  should  be. 
So  long  as  there  is  good,  there  must  be  evil ;  so  long 
as  there  is  a  better,  there  is  a  worse.  And  each  is. 
That  in  us  which  craves  satisfaction,  which  reaches 
out  for  its  own  and  knows  its  own  to  be  good,  must 
ever  live  in  mystery  and  paradox.  It  cannot  con- 
tend against  existence.  It  must  accept.  And  its 
acceptance  places  it  under  Law,  and  Law  is  of  the 
Gods  and  leads  to  the  Gods. 

"  I  believe  that  the  pagan  concept  of  these  indi- 
vidual, humanised  Gods,  dwelling  in  a  universe  for 
which  they  are  not  responsible,  but  whose  laws  they 
sustain,  presents  a  religious  system  which  has  many 
merits,  and  which,  as  moulded  by  Aristotle's  genius, 
may  well  be  considered  along  with  the  Buddhistic 
theory  of  emanation  and  ultimate  absorption,  or  with 
the  orthodox  Christian  doctrine  of  an  external  Creator 
and  Judge." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER:  "Is  not  this  frank 
polytheism  ? " 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  It  seems  more  a  poetic  form  of 
nature  worship,  springing  naturally  from  the  Greek 
love  of  beauty  and  of  order." 

THE  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  No,  it  is  not  that  —  not,  at 
least,  as  that  term  is  ordinarily  used.  To  the  Greeks 
nature  was  a  thing  irregular,  often  ugly  and  evil, 
never  to  be  trusted  as  apart  from  law.  Law,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  regular,  just,  and  beneficent;  always 


300  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

of  the  Gods.  It  is  rather  a  worship  of  law  than  of 
nature." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  To  the  extent,  how- 
ever, that  it  is  religious,  is  it  not  a  mere  poetic  per- 
sonification of  natural  forces  —  of  the  natural  law 
and  order?  And  if  this  be  so,  is  it  not  again  an 
identification  of  religion  with  poetry;  the  sense  of 
power  being  impelled  by  nature,  but  the  sense  of 
worth  lent  by  the  poetic  temperament  ? " 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  You  forget,  I  think,  that  the  Gods 
came  first.  The  Greek  mind  was  very  concrete,  in 
that  to  it  spirit  was  always  embodied  in  form,  and, 
whatever  may  have  been  the  case  in  the  age  of  later 
scepticism,  in  the  religious  life  of  Greece  the  Gods 
were  very  real  and  human." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  Then,  as  I  said,  you 
return  to  frank  polytheism.  Moreover,  is  not  the  most 
marked  characteristic  of  the  religious  craving  the 
insistence  that  the  object  of  its  worship  must  be  an 
ultimate  reality?  If  you  abandon  this,  do  you  not 
compromise  the  whole  religious  position?  Is  it  tol- 
erable to  the  religious  sense  that  its  object  should  be, 
like  man,  circumscribed  and  limited  by  an  unordered 
chaos,  —  making  a  garden  patch  in  a  limitless  and 
pathless  jungle  ?  I,  myself,  believe  that  more  can  be 
said  for  pluralism  than  is  here  the  fashion,  but  it 
seems  to  jibe  no  better  with  our  religious  longings 
than  it  does  with  Christianity." 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES  301 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  It  is  the  old  question  of 
the  relation  of  the  One  to  the  many.  We  cannot 
speak  of  the  '  many '  without  regarding  them  as  in 
some  sense  '  one/  Plurality  exists ;  but  it  can  exist 
only  in  unity  —  in  a  unity  that  at  once  synthesises 
and  supports  it.  So  I  would  quite  agree  with  you 
that  our  worship,  our  religious  aspiration,  must 
transcend  diversity  and  separateness,  must  rise  above 
all  differences  of  form  and  expression  toward  the 
fundamental  unity  behind  them." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  But,  again,  why  ? 
Why  is  unity  behind  or  more  fundamental  than 
plurality  ? " 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Because  Existence  is  more 
fundamental  than  existences.  The  fact  of  being  must 
be  behind  all  that  is." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  The  fact  of  being 
may  be  but  an  aspect,  an  attribute,  of  what  is. 
Things  are.  Your  mind  synthesises  them  for  the 
purposes  of  convenience,  grouping  them  according  to 
their  attributes ;  but  there  is  no  need  to  assume  that 
the  synthesis  you  choose  to  make,  these  common  at- 
tributes you  discover,  are  more  fundamental  than  the 
things  themselves.  Pluralism  is  consistent  enough." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  When  it  is  made  ulti- 
mate it  seems  to  me  rather  the  reductio  ad  absurdum 
of  philosophy.  Beings  pass  away  or  alter,  Being 
endures.  If?  as  you  say,  though  I  do  not  see  it  so, 


302  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

it  is  logically  consistent  to  view  the  ultimate  basis 
of  things  as  many,  I  could  only  reply  that  it  is 
equally  logical  to  view  it  as  one,  —  though  the  nature 
of  that  One  be  ever  hid  from  us.  Logic  cannot 
pass  on  both  premises  and  conclusions,  and  perhaps 
it  can  no  more  settle  this  question  than  it  can  force 
a  choice  between  the  Euclidian  and  the  non-Euclidian 
geometries.  But  logical  consistency  is  not  our  sole 
criterion  of  truth,  and  a  moment  ago  you  pointed  out 
that  the  one  system  satisfied  our  religious  cravings, 
while  the  other,  as  an  ultimate,  was  intolerable  to  it. 
Both  our  minds  and  hearts  require  that  the  many 
shall  somehow  be  synthesised  into  the  One,  and  the 
fulfilment  of  this  demand  seems  to  me  as  necessary 
an  attribute  and  criterion  of  truth  as  is  consistency 
of  internal  structure. 

"  I  think  if  we  approach  the  Greek  religion  in  this 
spirit,  we  will  come  nearer  to  an  understanding  of  its 
actual  significance  than  if  we  look  no  deeper  than 
its  polytheistic  form  and  nature  imagery.  Behind 
the  divine  must  lie  Divinity;  the  Gods  can  only  be 
such  as  they  express  the  Godhead.  As  the  Philoso- 
pher said,  the  God  of  Monism  must  ever  lie  beyond 
our  farthest  reach.  We  may  enter  the  light,  but  we 
will  never  touch  the  Flame  —  never  while  we  are 
still  men.  We  need  the  interpretation  of  manifested 
nature  and  of  pluralism;  the  individual  experience 
of  characteristic  and  attribute  which  these  give,  in 


SIGNS    OP    THE    TIMES          303 

order  that  we  may,  in  a  re-synthesis,  draw  near  to 
the  meaning  and  life  of  the  whole.  Though  the  re- 
synthesis,  made  by  the  mind,  remains  incomplete,  it 
yet  seems  the  closest  mental  expression  of  the  single- 
ness and  unity  which  the  heart  knows  in  religious 
aspiration.  We  call  i  the  good  7  that  which  we  can 
synthesise  with  what  we  feel  to  be  most  vitally  real ; 
that  which  remains  unassimilable  is  for  us  evil.  But 
always  there  is  synthesis.  So  it  seems  to  me  with 
the  individual  Gods  of  paganism.  Our  worship  must 
transcend  their  separate  personal  aspect  and  be  held 
by  the  common  Divinity  which  each  expresses  and 
exemplifies,  and  which  merges  them  all  into  a  single 
principle  of  good  —  of  law  and  order  and  justice, 
and,  in  Christianity,  of  love.  This  seems  to  me  no 
other  than  the  Logos  of  Christianity,  the  spiritual 
breath  of  existence,  which  is  the  life  of  the  soul,  and 
whose  movement  in  man  was  typified,  as  Christianity 
has  always  asserted,  in  the  life  of  Jesus.  I  do  not 
think  that  it  belittles  spiritual  and  cosmic  forces  to 
find  them  so  completely  animating  the  highest  mem- 
bers of  the  human  race  that  they  may  be  said  to  be 
their  life  and  true  being.  It  is  not  the  human  form 
we  worship  —  the  man  we  can  perhaps  meet  on 
the  mountain-side  and  call  our  friend  —  but  it  is 
the  spirit  of  life  itself,  the  life  of  the  Logos,  which 
that  man  has  made  his  own.  We  need  such  inter- 
pretations of  the  Divine,  such  living  symbols  of  the 


304  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

Cosmic  Spirit  which  we  seek.  But  we  cannot  wor- 
ship the  symbol  in  itself.  I  think  Christianity  for- 
gets too  often,  or  perhaps  misreads,  those  last  words 
of  the  Angel  to  John  in  Revelations,  where  John 
has  fallen  on  his  face  to  worship,  and  the  Angel 
replies,  '  See  thou  do  it  not :  for  I  am  thy  fellow- 
servant,  and  of  thy  brethren  the  prophets,  and  of 
them  which  keep  the  sayings  of  this  book:  worship 
God.'  " 

THE  EDITOE  :  "  I  have  been  interested  in  compar- 
ing what  you  have  said  with  Inge's  statement  that 
Plotinus  and  the  ISTeoplatonists,  who  so  emphasised 
the  Logos  doctrine,  were  in  the  line  of  Greek  rather 
than  Oriental  thought;  so  that  the  last  word  of 
Greek  philosophy  was  not  the  proud  and  melancholy 
isolation  of  stoicism,  but  the  warmth  and  unity  of 
mysticism  —  the  recognition  that  no  man  liveth  to 
himself  and  no  man  dieth  to  himself,  but  that  each 
lives  with  the  life  of  the  whole.  Is  not  the  Christian 
doctrine  of  the  communion  of  saints  similar  in  prin- 
ciple to  the  interpretation  you  are  putting  upon  the 
Greek  pantheon  ? " 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  suppose  it  is." 
THE  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  There  is  another  question 
I  would  like  to  see  discussed.  The  difference  be- 
tween science  and  religion  is  no  longer  one  of  opinion, 
nor  need  it  be  one  of  content.  It  is  rather  one  of 
method.  Each  seeks  to  enrich  and  better.  Which 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES          305 

is  the  more  effective  ?  The  one  deals  with  the  mech- 
anism, the  other  with  the  sense  of  values.  The  one 
works  from  without,  the  other  seeks  to  appeal  to 
something  within.  On  the  one  hand  we  have  the 
betterment  of  conditions  and  environment,  better 
sanitation,  increased  comfort,  a  wider  perspective. 
On  the  other,  we  have  the  adjustment  and  betterment 
of  the  inner  attitude.  Which  is  the  better  mode  of 
approach,  which  the  more  effective  method  ? " 

THE  EDITOR  :  "  There  is  another  question  to  be 
answered  first.  What  is  the  end  to  be  accomplished  ? 
We  must  know  this  before  we  can  pass  upon  the 
efficiency  of  means :  What  is  the  object  of  life  ?  " 

THE  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  Any  you  choose.  Let  the 
object  of  life  be  what  it  will.  What  is  the  most 
effective  means  of  attaining  it  ?  Take  any  one  of  us, 
—  it  does  not  matter  what  our  line,  —  are  we  being 
more  effective  if  we  stay  at  home  at  our  desks  on 
Sunday  or  if  we  leave  them  and  go  to  church  ?  That 
is  a  crude  illustration  of  what  I  am  asking." 

THE  CLERGYMAN :  "I  do  not  see  how  it  could  be 
possible  to  give  a  definite  answer  to  such  a  question 
as  that.  There  must  be  times  when  it  is  as  much 
your  duty  to  stay  away  from  church  as  it  is  at  other 
times  to  stay  away  from  your  classes.  Yet  regular 
periods  of  prayer  and  of  worship,  of  attuning  our- 
selves to  the  great  life  about  us,  and  rendering  the 
conscience  sensitive  to  highest  ideals,  must  be  neces- 

20 


306  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

sary  for  effectiveness  of  any  kind.  Anything  which 
burrows  down  into  the  depths  of  consciousness  and 
summons  thence  the  latent  powers  of  our  natures  — 
as  do  all  religious  exercises  —  must  be  instrumental 
in  producing  efficiency. 

"  For  instance,  this  town  knows  perfectly  well  how 
to  have  clean  streets,  better  and  safer  transportation, 
hygienic  conditions  in  tenements  and  factories.  All 
these  things  science  has  taught  us.  But  there  science 
leaves  it.  It  is  content  to  present  only  the  method, 
the  possibility.  Religion,  dealing  as  you  say  with 
the  sense  of  values,  awakens  us  to  the  need  and 
value  of  these  reforms.  It  makes  them  operative 
where  science  had  only  made  them  possible.  Reli- 
gion is  the  power,  the  dynamic  driving  force,  which 
makes  science  itself  effective  for  human  betterment. 
It  is  religion,  not  science,  that  awakens  the  conscience 
of  a  community.  Therefore  science  should  help  reli- 
gion, and  religion,  science.  They  should  not  be 
separated,  much  less  opposed." 

THE  AUTHOR  :  "  Can  we  not  put  it  in  this  way  ? 
Science  is  concerned  with  the  evolution  of  life  from 
the  mineral  to  man;  Religion  is  the  evolution  from 
man  to  God." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Then  is  the  Philosopher's 
question  left  without  meaning.  Religion  is  all.  This 
evolution  must  be  unbroken  and  continuous ;  must 
be  life  itself;  must  be  the  ever  deepening,  expand- 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES  307 

ing  consciousness  and  will,  which  now  make  us  men, 
and  which  can  make  us  something  more  than  man. 
Science  can  preserve  for  us  what  we  have  gained, 
care  for  and  better  our  bodies,  teach  us  the  laws  of 
physical  and  mental  health.  It  can  show  us  the  di- 
rection in  which  we  have  travelled,  and  so  forecast 
something  of  the  way  ahead.  It  can  help  us  to  an 
understanding  of  ourselves  and  of  the  universal  forces 
playing  through  us,  which  we  must  learn  to  use.  But 
the  end  for  which  we  use  them,  the  direction  in  which 
we  travel,  the  purpose  and  value  and  object  of  life, 
must  be  a  matter  of  Eeligion.  As  the  Clergyman 
said,  we  are  to  build  for  ourselves  a  spiritual  body 
in  which  we  may  know  God.  ~Not  separate  from 
other  men,  but  one  with  them,  we  make  our  journey. 
Each  step  forward  that  a  comrade  makes  helps  us. 
Each  time  we  rise  we  help  by  so  much  the  progress 
of  the  race.  It  is  a  matter  of  what  we  are,  and  what 
we  become.  And  the  way  is  lit  for  us  by  our  own 
ideals,  by  the  movement  of  the  Logos  in  our  own 
hearts,  by  the  achievement,  the  counsel,  and  the  inner 
companionship  to  be  had  from  those  who  have  pre- 
ceded us,  yet  who  have  left  something  of  their  spirit 
upon  the  path  they  trod.  Religion  ceases  to  be  a 
matter  of  creeds  or  forms  or  ceremonies,  —  though 
these  may  help  us.  It  becomes,  as  I  said,  a  matter 
of  what  we  are,  a  matter  of  our  own  obedience  to  the 
6  light  which  lighteth  every  man  who  cometh  into 


308  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

the  world.'  It  is  an  obedience  which  may  find  its 
expression  as  well  in  cleaning  the  streets  of  this  city 
as  in  a  Sunday  service.  It  is  a  matter  of  an  inner 
attitude,  which  permits  life  to  take  us  by  the  hand 
and  lead  us,  through  our  aspiration  and  our  duties, 
to  a  deeper  knowledge  of  itself;  till  we  become  one 
with  it  and  express  in  our  own  person  its  laws,  as 
we  share  its  consciousness.  It  seems  to  me  that  reli- 
gion is  evolution  become  conscious,  —  a  ray  of  what 
we  are  to  be,  already  lighting  what  we  are.  Surely 
nothing  in  the  world  can  be  more  important  to  us 
than  that.  All  else  is  but  a  means  to  that  end." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  I  wish  that  the 
churches  could  be  brought  to  take  such  an  attitude. 
It  is  pretty  saddening  to  see  men  who  have  spent 
years  of  hard  study  and  sacrifice  in  preparation  for 
their  calling  turned  away  for  no  other  reason  than 
that  they  cannot  prostitute  their  intelligence.  A 
student  of  mine  came  up  for  ordination  last  month, 
and  they  asked  him  what  historical  evidences  he  could 
give  for  the  doctrine  of  the  virgin  birth  of  Jesus. 
He  replied  that  he  was  afraid  he  could  give  no  con- 
vincing ones;  and  was  thereupon  told  to  go  back 
and  study  further.  He  was  all  cut  up  over  it  when 
he  came  back  to  see  me.  What  could  I  tell  him? 
It  may  be  necessary  to  retain  the  ancient  creeds,  but 
one  would  think  one  might  at  least  be  permitted  to 
take  each  as  a  whole :  to  say  that  '  on  the  whole  '  this 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES  309 

expresses  my  religious  views  and  attitude,  even  though 
this  or  that  clause  can  only  be  interpreted  symboli- 
cally. Do  you  not  think,  Mr.  F — ,  that  it  is  a  great 
pity  to  so  force  the  literal  acceptance  of  each  separate 
article?  It  seems  to  me  it  is  shutting  out  from  the 
clergy  all  the  best  thought  of  the  age,  and  I  know 
for  a  fact  that  it  is  a  great  temptation  to  hypocrisy. 
If  only  a  free  interpretation  were  permitted,  it  would 
help  greatly." 

THE  CLERGYMAN  :  "  Individual  interpretation  must 
come  sooner  or  later.  But  the  position  of  a  liberal 
clergyman  in  the  Church  to-day  is  by  no  means  a 
simple  one.  His  motives  are  frequently  questioned. 
And,  as  was  the  case  with  Dr.  Crapsey,  people  ask 
why,  if  he  is  not  content,  does  he  not  leave.  Many 
do  not  see  that  for  him  to  leave  would  be  for  him  to 
lose  the  little  power  that  he  may  have  to  bring  the 
Church  in  contact  with  the  vital,  but  too  often  un- 
recognised, religious  life  and  thought  of  such  men  as 
you,  for  instance.  There  is  general  ignorance  of  the 
foundations  of  historical  churches,  such  as  the  Eng- 
lish Church  and  the  Episcopal,  which,  by  reason  of 
their  comprehensiveness  were  compromises,  and  are 
obliged  to  be  more  tolerant  and  inclusive  than  other 
churches.  The  historic  creeds,  I  think,  will  be  more 
and  more  treated  as  symbols,  not  as  literal  state- 
ments, both  by  laymen  and  clergymen,  until  the  time 
is  ripe  for  a  more  universal  symbol  of  faith  in  the 


310  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

spiritual  life.  There  are  many  who  feel  in  this  way, 
and  in  the  end  I  think  this  policy  must  prevail.  Now 
ecclesiastical  liberty  is  largely  in  the  hands  of  the 
individual  bishop.  I  do  not  know  where  your  friend 
came  up  for  examination,  but  perhaps  in  another 
diocese  he  might  fare  better." 

THE  SOCIAL  PHILOSOPHER  :  "  He  is  not  very  hope- 
ful of  that  —  and  his  experience  has  made  him  ques- 
tion the  honesty  of  his  going  further.  He  does  not 
wish  to  enter  by  some  back  door.  Yet  he  was  brought 
up  in  the  Church,  and  has  for  years  looked  forward 
to  ministering  in  it.  I  do  not  know  at  all  what  he 
will,  or  can  do;  though  he  is  able  enough,  I  think, 
to  succeed  in  any  line." 

It  was  long  past  midnight,  and  as  the  Editor  rose 
to  go,  the  others  did  the  same,  bringing  to  a  close  the 
last  meeting  of  the  season.  The  Clergyman  stopped 
for  a  moment,  speaking  of  the  interest  and  pleasure 
he  had  found  in  the  discussions,  adding :  "  I  had 
hoped,  A — ,  you  would  have  given  us  one  of  your 
illuminating  summaries,  synthesising,  as  you  love  to 
do,  the  many  views  we  have  had  advanced,  and  tying 
the  whole  series  together  for  us.  I  should  have  liked 
to  hear  you." 

The  Mathematician  smiled,  and  the  Author  an- 
swered for  him :  "  I  think  he  had  rather  thought  of 
doing  so,  as  I  had  myself  intended  to  speak  upon  an- 


SIGNS    OF    THE    TIMES  Sll 

other  theme.  But  I  believe  we  were  both  wiser  to 
refrain.  The  synthesis  exists,  and  each  one  of  us  is 
taking  it  away  with  him  to-night.  It  is  better  left 
unformulated,  for  it  has  found  a  truer  expression  in 
our  mutual  understanding  and  sense  of  fellowship 
than  it  could  find  in  words.  Such  talks  as  these 
should  not  end  in  summaries  —  but  in  inspiration." 


IX 

HAS  THE  CHURCH  FAILED  ?— THE  OUTER  AND 
THE  INNER  LIFE 

SOME  weeks  later  the  city  was  scorching  in  a 
sudden  breathless  heat.  The  Mathematician's 
personal  affairs  had  kept  him  in  town  longer 
than  was  his  wont,  till  he  had  grown  used  to  solitary 
dining  in  deserted  clubs  and  restaurants.  This  after- 
noon, however,  as  he  passed  from  the  quivering  glare 
of  the  streets  to  the  dim  quiet  of  the  club,  he  had 
met  the  Historian.  The  two  had  dined  together,  and 
later  had  walked  to  the  Mathematician's  rooms,  where 
they  were  now  seated  before  the  low,  wide  window. 
The  night  breeze  had  finally  come,  and  with  it  a  hint 
of  freshness  from  the  distant  sea.  They  had  been 
talking  of  the  Historian's  work,  of  the  endless  pa- 
tience and  labour  involved  in  the  search  for  the 
original  sources  —  the  vast  mass  of  possibly  doubtful 
material  which  must  be  examined  only  to  be  rejected, 
the  care  with  which  evidence  must  be  weighed  and 
sifted  —  and  yet  the  richness  of  the  reward. 

"  I  wish,"  the  Historian  had  said,  "  that  we  could 
wipe  out  all  the  second-hand  opinions  of  history,  all 
the  overgrowth  of  tradition  and  prejudice,  and  force 


HAS    THE    CHURCH    FAILED?    313 

the  world  back  in  each  case  to  the  original  records, 
or,  let  us  say,  a  clear  translation  of  them,  for  its  in- 
formation. Perhaps,  then,  we  could  see  things  as 
they  were.  But  now  it  is  all  overlaid  with  centuries 
of  imaginings.  Do  you  know  what  has  done  us  the 
most  harm  ?  It  is  the  dramatic  and  literary  instinct. 
It  requires  constant  watchfulness  not  to  write  drama 
rather  than  history ;  to  keep  oneself  down  to  the  bare 
facts  which  are  known  to  us,  and  not  weave  around 
them  a  fabric  of  our  own.  And  it  is  simply  astound- 
ing how  error  perpetuates  itself ;  how  something  once 
printed  is  quoted  and  assumed,  and  appears  and  re- 
appears again  and  again,  in  the  most  diverse  places, 
till  you  can  scarcely  believe  so  much  could  have 
sprung  from  so  little.  Until  we  popularise  the  sources 
we  shall  never  be  able  to  separate  the  facts  from  the 
fictions  which  cling  to  them. 

"  After  all,  there  is  no  study  so  fascinating ;  for 
it  is  our  own  nature  that  history  reveals  to  us.  His- 
tory is  the  great  enlightener.  If  we  would  only  live 
by  its  light !  Do  you  know,  A — ,  I  believe  that  nine- 
tenths  of  the  trouble  with  the  Church  to-day  is  due 
to  simple  ignorance  of  history.  The  ordinary  clerical 
attitude  toward  the  Church,  particularly  towards  its 
creeds  and  dogmas,  would  be  simply  inconceivable  if 
their  actual  historic  origin  and  development  were 
understood.  I  do  not  know  what  the  reason  of  it  is. 
Partly,  I  suppose,  the  tendency  to  repeat  error,  like 


314  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

parrots,  from  which  we  all  suffer.  And  more,  I  sus- 
pect, is  accounted  for  by  our  habit  of  leaving  what 
we  learn  unassimilated ;  isolated  in  its  own  pigeon- 
hole, —  as  though  it  had  the  measles  and  must  be 
kept  from  the  other  occupants  of  our  minds ;  whereas 
the  spread  of  the  contagion  which  it  carries  is  the 
best  service  a  fact  or  idea  can  do  for  us. 

"  I  doubt  if  we  make  enough  of  anything  that  we 
know,  —  that  the  earth  moves  round  the  sun,  or  that 
ants  keep  cows.  I  am  sure  we  do  not  make  enough 
of  the  doctrine  of  evolution.  We  talk  about  it  at 
wearisome  length,  but  we  do  not  even  yet  assume 
it  in  our  habitual  thought  of  ourselves.  It  would 
make  a  wonderful  difference  if  we  really  would  look 
at  our  own  lives  from  that  standpoint.  We  adopt  it 
readily  enough  toward  the  lower  orders,  but  not  with 
ourselves  —  not  as  applying  to  that  part  of  us  which 
itself  assumes  standpoints.  We  shrink  from  realis- 
ing that  our  intelligence  is  not  a  ready-made  hand- 
me-down,  not  some  perfect,  immutable  principle  fresh 
from  God.  But,  in  truth,  it  is  different  to-day  from 
what  it  was  in  the  past,  or  what  it  will  be  in  the 
future.  Our  minds  carry  over  with  them  into  the 
present  much  that  belongs  to  past  conditions.  Much 
of  us  really  pertains  to  the  cat  and  dog  stage  of  de- 
velopment. There  are  atrophying  '  meows  '  and  rudi- 
mentary tails  in  our  minds  as  in  our  bodies.  We  are 
continually  trying  to  make  our  conditions  square  with 


HAS    THE    CHURCH    FAILED?    315 

our  wants.  We  should  make  our  wants  square  with 
our  conditions.  And  we  could  do  this  if  we  .would 
but  realise  how  our  wants  have  arisen ;  how  many  of 
them  are  anachronisms,  survivals  of  a  finished  past. 

"  It  is  pathetic  to  me  to  see  how  the  clergy  live  in 
fear  of  present  facts.  They  are  in  constant  dread 
of  some  discovery  which  will  upset  all  their  edifice 
of  dogma,  and  they  cannot  tell  from  what  quarter 
the  blow  may  fall.  It  may  be  a  papyrus  newly  un- 
covered in  Egypt,  or  some  ancient  manuscript  left 
mouldering  through  the  centuries  in  a  forgotten  mon- 
astery, or  it  may  be  from  the  laboratories  of  our 
chemists  and  biologists.  They  cannot  tell.  All  they 
know  is  this  feeling  of  vague  alarm;  the  pressure  of 
the  young  present  upon  the  lingering  past ;  the  pres- 
sure of  facts  upon  theories  that  are  out  of  tune  with 
facts.  Why,  they  have  a  regular  system  of  defence; 
scouts  and  pickets  which  waylay  any  new  '  scab ' 
idea,  and,  if  they  cannot  stop  it,  try  to  assassinate  it. 
Reading  some  of  the  clerical  papers,  you  would  think 
religion  was  on  strike  against  progress,  and,  refusing 
to  work  there  itself,  was  still  desperately  afraid  its 
place  would  be  taken  by  a  better  artisan." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  recognise  the  picture. 
But  it  is  not  the  portrait  of  religion,  however  true  to 
some  members  of  the  Church." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  I  know  your  view  of  religion 
as  the  image  of  our  next  step  in  evolution.  That 


316  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

would  be  just  as  it  should  be;  just  what  we  would 
like  it  to  be.  But  the  trouble  is  that  religion  always 
seems  to  mirror  the  past  and  not  the  future;  to  re- 
main itself  upon  the  preceding  step,  crying  out  upon 
all  who  venture  to  advance.  The  Church  is  constantly 
going  back." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  That  is  organisation,  not 
religion." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  Yes,  but  the  Church  is  an  or- 
ganisation, and  religion  is  always  organising.  Re- 
member what  our  own  good  Clergyman  said  of  his 
love  and  need  for  organisation;  and  he  is  far  more 
progressive  than  the  clergy  as  a  whole." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  have  a  great  admira- 
tion for  our  friend  the  Clergyman.  I  admire  his 
courage,  his  force,  and  his  effectiveness.  He  is  always 
in  dead  earnest  about  his  work.  He  represents  an 
element  in  the  Church  which  stands  for  genuine  help- 
fulness and  for  genuine  religion.  He  is  content  to 
leave  outgrown  formulas  aside,  neither  attacking  nor 
defending  them,  but  re-emphasising  spiritual  reality 
and  the  worth  of  spiritual  experience.  He  keeps  his 
eyes  on  what  has  to  be  accomplished,  and  I  think  it 
is  the  tremendous  effectiveness  of  organisation  that 
most  appeals  to  him.  Here  is  an  instrument  ready 
to  his  hands.  By  means  of  it  he  can  reach  thousands 
of  people,  where  alone  he  would  reach  tens.  He 
wishes  to  use  it,  not  to  be  its  slave." 


HAS    THE    CHURCH    FAILED  ?    317 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  But  it  is  so  largely  discredited. 
One  rarely  treats  a  pulpit  utterance  seriously  in  these 
days.  You  take  it  as  part  of  the  ceremony,  part  of 
what  is  expected,  and  so  without  significance,  like 
the  formal  inanities  of  social  intercourse.  You  may 
really  '  have  had  a  delightful  time/  but  no  one  would 
think  of  taking  you  seriously  when  you  say  so.  It 
would  seem  to  me  that  the  pulpit  would  be  the  last 
place  in  the  world  from  which  to  start  a  genuine  re- 
form, and  that  the  Church  must  be  more  of  a  hin- 
drance than  a  help." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  Nevertheless,  there  is 
there  to-day  the  genuine  religious  spirit  which  is 
moving  such  men  as  F — ,  and  which  gives  the  hope 
that  the  Church,  as  a  whole,  may  yet  follow  it.  That 
is  why  I  championed  the  Church  against  your  exposi- 
tion of  its  failure  as  an  historic  institution.  There 
is  to-day  a  better  chance  for  it  than  ever  before.  Can 
the  new  spirit  win  ?  If  so,  the  Church  is  far  too  valu- 
able, potentially  at  least,  far  too  effective,  to  be  dis- 
missed as  a  failure.  Look  at  the  work  F —  is  him- 
self doing,  not  only  in  broadening  and  deepening  the 
religious  beliefs  of  his  congregation,  but  also  in  civic 
betterment.  His  church  is  a  real  factor  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood. Where  I  see  work  like  that  I  want  to 
pitch  in  and  help." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  The  trouble  is  that  organisa- 
tion, particularly  church  organisation,  inevitably 


318  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

tends  to  get  into  the  hands  of  older  men.  It  must 
always  crystallise  about  what  has  been;  about  the 
opinions  of  the  majority,  not  of  the  few.  Therefore 
both  its  form  and  its  ruling  spirit  is  always  of  the 
past,  —  an  incumbrance  upon  progress.  You  think 
that  despite  this  it  may  be  made  valuable  ?  But 
surely  all  this  ceremonial  and  totemism  is  anachro- 
nous  —  sheer  survivals  from  barbarism ;  fossil  re- 
mains, preserved  in  organisation,  of  a  life  long 
departed." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  think  there  was  point 
in  what  the  Oxonian  said  of  ceremony  and  symbols. 
The  variations  of  ordinary  dress  are  more  noticeable 
and  disturbing  to  me  than  the  uniformity  of  a  sur- 
plice. We  need  symbolism,  I  suspect,  but  we  need 
still  more  to  recognise  it  as  such,  and  bend  all  our 
energies  to  the  reality  beyond.  There  is  value  in  an- 
cient tradition,  if  we  use  it  as  a  means,  not  an  end." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  But  why  should  we  try  to  force 
the  new  into  the  old  forms?  Did  not  Jesus  himself 
say  that  no  man  puts  new  wine  into  old  bottles? 
The  world  is  not  the  same  as  it  was  two  hundred 
years  ago.  Why  should  we  try  to  deform  the  grow- 
ing present  by  forcing  it  into  outworn  moulds  ?  The 
attempt  to  square  the  geology  of  Genesis  with  the 
geology  of  science  is  simply  pitiable." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  No  one  cares  about  the 
geology  of  Genesis." 


HAS    THE    CHURCH    FAILED?     319 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  You  mean  that  you  and  I  do 
not.  But  there  are  many  who  do;  and  fifty  years 
ago  it  was  a  burning  question  for  all.  I  referred  to 
it,  though,  only  as  an  example,  typical  of  much  else 
—  of  the  desperate  running  fight  the  Church  has 
made,  always  obstinate,  but  always  forced  to  yield, 
always  defeated." 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  And  only  seeing  after- 
wards that  defeat  was  not  loss  but  gain." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  That  is  it  exactly.  But  the 
Church  has  never  learned  the  lesson,  —  nor,  do  I 
think,  have  most  of  us.  We  need  to  recognise  that 
the  intelligence  of  man  is  itself  capable  of  evolution 
and  that  it  must  leave  behind  it  the  things  it  has 
outgrown.  We  are  such  cowards  here,  we  cling  to 
the  familiar  simply  because  it  is  familiar.  We  dread 
the  new.  At  least  many  do  —  not  all.  The  Prag- 
matist  is  right.  It  is  an  individual  matter.  We 
must  make  our  minds  conform  to  conditions;  not 
be  continually  seeking  to  build  systems  to  suit  our 
desires.  We  should  eliminate  desires  that  do  not  fit 
the  facts,  not  strive  to  gratify  them.  There  are  those 
two  ways  of  gaining  satisfaction.  But  the  one  es- 
tablishes us  firmly  upon  nature  itself ;  the  other  puts 
us  at  odds  with  facts.  And  in  the  end  facts  have  a 
way  of  triumphing,  when  all  our  work  must  be  done 
anew.  But  worse  than  this,  our  systems  always 
cramp  us.  We  have  to  carry  our  fools'  paradise 


320  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

around  with  us,  fearful  lest  if  we  once  overstep  its 
borders  we  may  never  return. 

"  The  Church  is  constantly  fettering  the  spirit. 
The  whole  tendency  of  Christianity  is  to  put  as  many 
veils  between  our  intelligence  and  the  universe  as 
possible.  No  one  seems  to  realise  how  it  superim- 
posed again  upon  humanity  what  the  best  pagan 
minds  had  succeeded  in  eliminating.  The  freedom 
which  Plato  and  Cicero  and  the  educated  men  of 
Greece  and  Rome  had  acquired,  their  direct  view 
and  acceptance  of  life,  were  all  wiped  out  with  Chris- 
tianity, and  this  great  mass  of  infantile  cosmology 
again  imposed.  If  we  do  attribute,  as  the  Clergyman 
did,  the  moral  betterment  of  man  to  Christianity,  we 
must  also  count  the  cost  at  which  it  was  obtained. 
But  those  vices  were  never  prevalent  in  Germany, 
for  instance.  Probably  they  existed  only  in  certain 
Mediterranean  centres.  NOT  do  I  believe  vice  was 
so  much  more  universal  in  Greece  and  Eome  than  it 
is  to-day  in  our  large  cities.  Certainly  American 
Paris  cannot  claim  to  be  moral.  Of  course,  the  schol- 
ars and  literary  men  are  less  frank  now  than  they 
were.  Probably  they  are  better,  too.  Though  where 
you  will  find  Plato's  peer  is  hard  to  see.  Surely  in 
his  '  Laws '  he  is  as  outspoken  as  the  Clergyman 
against  unnatural  vice.  But,  on  the  whole,  it  seems 
to  me  that  all  these  two  thousand  years  have  only 
seen  a  detour  so  far  as  religious  thought  has  been 


HAS    THE    CHURCH    FAILED?     321 

concerned.  I  do  not  see  that  Christianity  has  brought 
us  as  much  as  it  has  taken  away.  I  do  not  particu- 
larly turn  to  the  Bible  for  stimulus  and  help.  I  read 
it  for  its  style,  —  and  with  deep  wonder  at  many  of 
the  sayings  of  Jesus,  at  his  character  and  teaching. 
But  I  do  not  get  as  much  stimulus  from  them  as  I 
do  from  the  life  of  Leslie  Stephen,  for  example. 
Jesus's  problems  were  not  mine,  while  Stephen's  were. 
I  do  not  particularly  want  to  do  what  Jesus  did; 
while  Stephen's  is  just  the  type  of  big,  strong,  sane, 
all-round  mind  that  I  admire.  How  is  it  with  you  ? 
Where  do  you  look  for  strength  ?  Do  you  turn  to  the 
Bible  in  your  own  troubles  ?  " 

THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  It  depends,  I  think,  upon 
the  kind  of  trouble.  I  go  often  to  the  teaching  of 
Jesus ;  rarely,  if  ever,  to  any  other  part  of  the  Bible. 
There  are  a  number  of  books  I  use  in  this  way.  I 
suppose  everyone  has  his  favourites.  I  am  very  fond 
of  Thomas  a  Kempis  and  of  parts  of  St.  Augustine. 
But  '  Light  on  the  Path '  and  the  <  Bhagavad  Gita,' 
and  many  others,  Marcus  Aurelius,  and  Epictetus, 
and  Emerson,  Fenelon  and  Father  Guillore,  are 
quite  as  dear  to  me.  I  am  particularly  fond  of  all 
the  mystics,  and  find  helpful  the  records  of  all  those 
who  were  trying  to  broaden  and  uplift  their  con- 
sciousness. That  is  an  awkward  description,  but  it 
will  show  the  kind  of  book  I  mean. 

"You  like  Maitland's  'Life  of  Leslie  Stephen' 
21 


322  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

because  it  helps  you  do  what  you  are  trying  to  do. 
It  helps  you  live  your  own  human  life  cleanly  and 
forcibly  and  effectively.  As  you  said,  Stephen's 
problems  were  much  your  own,  and  the  way  he  bore 
his  burdens  helps  you  to  do  the  like.  But  beyond 
this  there  is  something  more.  There  is  the  reality 
of  the  spiritual  life.  And  here  I  think  such  differ- 
ence as  there  is  between  us  has  its  origin.  To  me 
this  reality  is  the  one  supreme  fact  of  life ;  while  to 
you  it  still  seems  a  matter  of  impersonal  speculation. 
The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  to  be  entered  here  and 
now.  As  Jesus  said,  it  is  i  at  hand.'  There  is  a  new 
type  of  spiritual  consciousness  which  can  be  attained 
—  the  consciousness  of  the  heavens.  It  is  our  next 
step  away  from  the  cat  and  the  dog  and  our  rudi- 
mentary mental  tales.  And  it  is  also  the  great  ad- 
venture, the  call  to  which  is  eternally  vibrant  in  our 
hearts,  and  upon  which  the  mystics  of  all  the  ages 
have  entered.  Some  description  of  this  consciousness 
they  have  left  behind  them,  with  some  record  of  the 
road  thereto,  to  help  those  who  follow  after.  This 
is  what  I  am  trying  to  do  —  believing  in  its  reality, 
its  human  possibility,  and  its  infinite  value.  There- 
fore it  is  that  Jesus's  sayings  have  for  my  efforts  the 
same  intimate  personal  application  that  you  find  in 
the  thoughts  of  Leslie  Stephen.  For  I  do  not  look 
upon  them  as  remote  morality,  but  as  descriptions 
of  a  road  I  would  travel;  or  as  the  science  of  the 


HAS    THE    CHURCH    FAILED?    323 

soul's  growth  and  life,  as  exact  and  definite  as  the 
science  of  chemistry,  and,  like  it,  to  be  verified  only 
by  experiment. 

"  The  second  difference  between  your  view  and 
mine  flows,  I  think,  naturally  from  this,  and  seems 
to  me  really  to  lie  in  the  question  as  to  whether  or 
no  we  are  in  the  front  rank  of  evolution.  If  we  are, 
then  each  step  we  take  is  indeed  new,  and  so,  of 
necessity,  an  abandonment  of  the  past.  But  if,  on 
the  other  hand,  others  have  gone  before  us,  then  may 
the  life  of  personal  religious  experience  have  been  the 
same  from  time  immemorial.  As  we  advance  we  may 
grow  nearer  to  all  the  great  of  all  the  past,  and 
enter  into  a  subtile  sense  of  comradeship  and  com- 
munion with  them.  This  latter  seems  to  me  the 
truth;  and  therefore  I  am  the  more  hopeful  for  the 
ancient  systems;  hopeful  that  they  will  throw  aside 
the  overgrowths  of  ages  and  turn  once  more  to  their 
true  mission,  leading  men  to  the  heritage  of  the  spirit 
and  emphasising  again  its  reality  and  its  worth.  This 
is  my  hope.  Whether  it  will  be  justified  or  not  I  do 
not  know.  But  it  is  at  least  a  hope  worth  fighting 
for  —  and  more  than  that  we  do  not  need." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  I  think  you  have  come  very 
close  to  the  heart  of  the  matter  in  what  you  have 
been  saying  now,  though  I  agree  with  your  first 
point  more  than  with  your  second.  I  do  not  know 
how  to  describe  personal  religion.  As  I  said,  it  seems 


324  TALKS    ON    RELIGION 

not  the  same,  but  still  akin  to  the  sense  of  beauty; 
the  appreciation  and  delight  in  art  and  music  and 
nature  seem  all  akin  to  the  religious  sense,  and  we 
think  of  them  first  in  seeking  similes  for  it.  But  per- 
haps we  can  do  no  better  than  dwell  on  the  old  idea 
of  a  love  and  peace,  which  may  be  felt  and  radiated. 
The  acquirement  of  such  peace,  if  one  could  gain  it, 
must  bring  the  greatest  help  and  benefit  not  only  to 
oneself,  but  to  others.  This  is,  indeed,  very  much 
worth  while,  if  it  can  be  acquired.  I  had  thought 
of  it  more  as  a  matter  of  temperament,  as  something 
we  were  born  with  or  without.  I  had  not  thought 
of  slowly  inculcating  it  in  oneself,  or  of  its  being  the 
aim  of  religion.  I  should  think,  from  the  echoes  of 
the  Eastern  religions  that  have  reached  me,  that  they 
were  more  fitted  to  teach  this,  and  probably  had  been 
more  successful  in  imparting  it,  than  had  Chris- 
tianity. Christianity  does  not  seem  to  have  bent  its 
efforts  to  this,  nor  paid  much  heed  to  it.  Neverthe- 
less, you  believe  that  it  always  has  been  in  Chris- 
tianity, and  that,  despite  the  sins  of  the  Church, 
despite  its  long  record  of  obstruction  and  the  dwarf- 
ing of  the  spirit,  despite  all  this,  you  believe  that  the 
Church  may  still  be  used  to  teach  genuine  religion  ?  " 
THE  MATHEMATICIAN  :  "  I  believe  there  is  a  fight- 
ing chance  for  it,  and  while  there  is  that  I  mean  to 

fight." 

THE  HISTORIAN  :  "  I  do  not.     I  am  not  so  opti- 


HAS    THE    CHURCH    FAILED?    325 

mistic.  This  side  of  it  I  must  leave  to  you  or  others. 
But  on  the  personal  side  I  agree  with  you;  that, 
strange  as  it  may  seem  to  you,  satisfies  me.  More 
goes  on  within  each  one  of  us  than  others  ever  guess. 
And  this  seems  very  true  to  me,  very  well  worth  while. 
I  am  glad  you  said  it. 

"  Now  I  think  I  shall  walk  home.     Good  night." 

The  Mathematician  moved  back  to  the  window, 
looking  up,  out  from  the  cavernous  street  in  which 
he  dwelt,  far  into  the  still  spaces  of  the  night.  The 
stars  in  their  wide  courses  held  his  gaze,  and  before 
he  turned  away  they  were  paling  in  the  summer 
dawn.  Before  him  came  the  vision  the  Clergyman 
had  drawn  of  the  spirit  of  Christ  waiting  and  work- 
ing through  the  centuries  till  He  could  come  again 
into  the  hearts  of  men,  His  meaning  and  His  mission 
understood.  And  in  the  Mathematician's  ears  there 
rang  the  words  from  Eevelation, 

"  I,  Jesus,  am  the  bright,  the  morning  star. 

"  Surely  I  come  quickly." 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  } 

OF 


The  University  Press,  Cambridge,  U.  S.  A. 


'V   OP   CALT' 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 
LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


S23Nov'57Pt 

REC'D  LO 

NOV  19  1957 

JVi 

ADD  97  ?nn 

ArK  L  *   ttw 

General  Library 
LD  21A-50m-8,'57                                University  of  California 
(C8481slO)476B                                                 Berkeley 

YC  .99777 


